Court Opinion

ID: 9397296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:38.408421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.318044
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6308      Doc: 9        Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6308

        CHARLIE L. HARDIN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH JOI PEAKE; KATY POOLE,
        SUPERINTENDENT OF SCOTLAND; OFFICER WILEY; QUEEN GERALD;
        CAPTAIN COVINGTON; MUNGO; OFFICER ADAMS; OFFICER BEATHE;
        OFFICER NEAL; HARRISON; OFFICER DOUGLAS; OFFICER WHITE;
        SGT. LOCKLEAR; SGT. PIERCE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:22-cv-00691-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charlie L. Hardin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6308      Doc: 9         Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charlie L. Hardin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that

        the district court dismiss his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). * 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, 545-47 (1949). The report Hardin 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 deny Hardin’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

               *
                The magistrate judge issued both an order granting Hardin in forma pauperis status
        and a report recommending that the district court dismiss his civil action. Hardin’s appeal
        does not pertain to the order granting him in forma pauperis status.

                                                     2