Christopher WEST, a/k/a Christopher Gearl West, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Director William R. BYARS, Jr., in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Warden Cecilia Reynolds, in her individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Associate Warden Jerry Washington, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Major Darren Seaward, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Captain Daniel Dubose, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Sergeant Baker, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Officer Chris Hunt, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Officer Robert Bigham, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Inst. Investigator Sylvesta Robinson, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Nurse Luanne Mungo, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; Robert Bryan, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2016-07-14No. No. 15-6643

667 F. App'x 387

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher West seeks to appeal the district court’s order, accepting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in West’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order West seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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