Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07110/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7110

MALCOM MAXWELL RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; WESTERN CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION; JOHN DOE, Inmate Commissary Supervisor; 

MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION- HAGERSTOWN; LEE ANN 

CRAWFORD, Office Secretary II; MAUREEN REID, Case Management 

Supervisor; JOHN DOE, Keefe employee who processes inmate 

requests; TONY UNKNOWN, Inmate Commissary Supervisor for 

MCI-H; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-01735-WDQ)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith 

Lane-Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7110 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing some, but not all, of his claims brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Ryidu-X

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny RyiduX’s motion for preliminary injunction and dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7110 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2