Court Opinion

ID: 9374775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:01:04.554265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.965647
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801      Doc: 16        Filed: 02/22/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6801

        DANIEL T. LIPSCOMB,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SUPERINTENDENT JAMES F. WHITLEY; LIEUTENANT SAVILLE;
        CAPTAIN HEATH CUSTER,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        KIM BENSON, Jail Investigator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BURRELL;
        LIEUTENANT COOPER; LIEUTENANT DERITO; SERGEANT MACKEY,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00411-EKD-PMS)

        Submitted: February 6, 2023                               Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Daniel T. Lipscomb, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, Brittany Elizabeth Shipley,
        TIMBERLAKE SMITH, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801         Doc: 16      Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel T. Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying Defendants’

        motion for summary judgment pending further briefing.            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 Lipscomb seeks to appeal is neither a final

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

        Lipscomb’s motion to amend his informal brief 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

               *
                 To the extent that Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s final order, his
        premature filing is insufficient to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment. See
        In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005).

                                                     3