Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06479/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06479-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mr. Body
Appellee
Elijah Shane Clary
Appellant
Mr. Fields
Appellee
Deborah Hamm
Appellee
Sergeant Harper

Ms. Harris
Appellee
Robert C. Lewis

Sheila Moore
Appellee
Cynthia Mundy

Ateiat Philips
Appellee
Mr. Philips
Appellee
Unknown Custody Officer

Ms. Whaley
Appellee
Darlene White
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6479

ELIJAH SHANE CLARY,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DARLENE WHITE; SHEILA MOORE; MS. HARRIS; DR. ATEIAT PHILIPS; 

SERGEANT DEBORAH HAMM; MR. PHILIPS; MS. WHALEY; MR. FIELDS; 

MR. BODY,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

SERGEANT HARPER; ROBERT C. LEWIS; CYNTHIA MUNDY; UNKNOWN 

CUSTODY OFFICER,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03204-D)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Shane Clary, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly 

Appeal: 15-6479 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, 

PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6479 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Elijah Shane Clary seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in part in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

action. 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 Clary 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

Appeal: 15-6479 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3