Court Opinion

ID: 9391687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:38.444941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.689065
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6763      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6763

        BRANDON ROBERTS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        THOMAS SIRES, Captain; FRANK BISHOP, Warden; JEFFREY NINES,
        Assistant Warden; WILLIAM BOHER, Chief of Security; JACK JOHNS, Shift
        Commander; ANTHONY BRENT, H.O.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-02791-ELH)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                            Decided: May 1, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6763         Doc: 14        Filed: 05/01/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brandon Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint

        under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in part without prejudice. 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 Roberts 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