Opinion
21-7177
01-05-2023
JEFFREY CORPORAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT PENNINGTON; OFFICER DONALDSON; BUTLER, Assistant Warden; WARDEN WEBER; ARNOLD, Security Chief; COMMISSIONER HILL; SECRETARY GREEN, Defendants - Appellees.
Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 12, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03357-DKC)
Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Corporal appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Before addressing the merits of Corporal's appeal, we first must be assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We 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, 545-47 (1949). "Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties." Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in Corporal's complaint. Specifically, the court failed to address Corporal's allegations that his First Amendment rights were violated when Donaldson withheld permissible paperback books because Corporal refused to acquiesce to the destruction of his allegedly prohibited hardcover book and subsequently continued to withhold the paperback books in retaliation for Corporal filing a grievance. Because the order Corporal seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. 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 AND REMANDED.