Court Opinion

ID: 9961132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:23.568364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:17.403436
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7229      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/16/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7229

        CLIFTON DONELL LYLES,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; DIRECTOR BRIAN STIRLING; WARDEN
        DONNIE STONEBREAKER; WARDEN KENNETH SHARPE; ASSOCIATE
        WARDEN RICHARD CHVALA; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BRIGHTHARP;
        MAJOR MEEKS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:22-cv-03572-SAL-TER)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                          Decided: April 16, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clifton Donell Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW FIRM,
        P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7229      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/16/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clifton Donell Lyles seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation, denying Lyles’ motion to appoint counsel, and

        dismissing some, but not all, of the claims Lyles raised in his complaint. 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 Lyles seeks to appeal is neither a final

        order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’

        motion to dismiss and 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