Court Opinion

ID: 9837996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:13.789004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.744293
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6263      Doc: 8         Filed: 09/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6263

        DEONTA JEROME HICKS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        RICK WHITE, Warden, Red Onion State Prison; CLARKE, Safety Officer, Red
        Onion State Prison; KEITH ALMARODE, Food Service Supervisor, Red Onion
        State Prison,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        STACY DAY, Unit Manager; ERIC MILLER, Unit Manager,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:22-cv-00235-PMS)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                 Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6263      Doc: 8        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Deonta Jerome Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6263      Doc: 8         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Deonta Jerome Hicks seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting the

        motion to dismiss filed by certain Defendants in Hicks’ pro se civil action. This court may

        exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and

        collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

        Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Hicks seeks to appeal is neither a final

        order, given that litigation on his remaining claims against other Defendants is ongoing,

        nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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

                                                      3