Court Opinion

ID: 9365148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:43.241737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.494260
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7238      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7238

        LARRY MICHAEL SLUSSER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MS. MORALES, Correctional officer;
        ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON: DR. ANTHONY TIMMS; MEDICAL STAFF MS.
        WALTON-BATTLE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:21-cv-02431-DCC-PJG)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Michael Slusser, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7238         Doc: 15      Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Larry Michael Slusser seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

        reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to one

        Defendant on Slusser’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and granting the remaining Defendants’

        motion to dismiss all claims except Slusser’s negligence claim pursuant to the Federal Tort

        Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. 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 orders Slusser seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable

        interlocutory or collateral orders.   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