Court Opinion

ID: 9785027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:10.259868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:03.539226
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6374      Doc: 16         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6374

        LARRY JAMES TYLER, a/k/a Larry James Tyler, #354459,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        JAMES HUDSON, Sheriff; DIANN WILKS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:22-cv-01544-MGL-MHC)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, Caleb Martin Riser,
        RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6374      Doc: 16        Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Larry James Tyler seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Tyler’s

        motion for appointment of an independent medical expert in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 Tyler 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