Court Opinion

ID: 9374763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:53.973318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.070894
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335      Doc: 24        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7335

        RANDLE JACKSON, individually and as the Personal Representative for the Estate
        of Dashaun Simmons,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CAPTAIN LIVINGSTON; ANTHONY HOWARD HALL; CAPTAIN REESE,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-01656-DCC-SVH)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joshua Thomas Hawkins, Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak, HAWKINS & JEDZINIAK, LLC,
        Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Allan DeMasters, Peter Michael
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335      Doc: 24         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Balthazor, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Jacob Alan Biltoft,
        Janet Brooks Holmes, MCKAY FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335         Doc: 24      Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Randle Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendations and dismissing all but one defendant in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        case. 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 Jackson

        seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

        Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Jackson’s motion to

        remand as moot. 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