Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02174/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2174

GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GUILFORD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; B. J. BARNES; SGT. 

LANIER; OFFICER MANGUM; GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00499-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: August 18, 2015 Decided: September 18, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Reynold Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Livingston 

Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina; John Mark Payne, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2174 Doc: 31 Filed: 09/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

George Reynold Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation in this action filed under 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 Evans seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.* 

Accordingly, we 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

 * According to the district court’s docket sheet, Evans has 

filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. However, the district court has not yet ruled 

on the ojections or issued a final order.

Appeal: 14-2174 Doc: 31 Filed: 09/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 2