Court Opinion

ID: 9365143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:40.077803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.389515
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935       Doc: 17        Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6935

        STERLING L. SINGLETON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN,

                             Defendants - Appellees,

                      and

        SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP;
        WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-RMG-MHC)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                     Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES,
        ELLIOTT, TYLER & SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Jerome Scott
        Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s July 26, 2022, order

        granting in part and denying in part Singleton’s motion to extend the discovery deadline,

        and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation—entered the same day—pertaining

        to Singleton’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent

        injunctive relief. 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).

        Neither the appealed-from order nor the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

        qualifies as a final order, given that litigation on Singleton’s claims against the remaining

        Defendants is ongoing, and they likewise do not qualify as appealable interlocutory or

        collateral orders. 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

                                                     3