Court Opinion

ID: 9947136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:35.24329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.308854
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6613      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6613

        WILLIAM BAKER, formerly #251725 f/k/a William A. Baker,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DR. STACY SMITH; WARDEN WALLACE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:22-cv-02073-JD-KFM)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William A. Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6613      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s report and recommendation in part and dismissing some of Baker’s 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, but allowing Baker’s remaining claim to proceed.

        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 Baker 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

                                                     2