Court Opinion

ID: 9947153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:53.142968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:57.941420
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7047      Doc: 6        Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7047

        MALCOLM BEY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ISAAC K. FEKETE, d/b/a South Carolina Highway Patrol,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-04782-HMH-JDA)

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

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Malcolm Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7047      Doc: 6         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Malcolm Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order rejecting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation to dismiss Bey’s initial complaint and remanding to the

        magistrate judge to consider Bey’s amended complaints, filed after the magistrate judge

        issued the report and recommendation. 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 Bey 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