Opinion
24-6449
08-27-2024
KENNETH RAY CREEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GARY JUNKER; DR. ARTHUR CAMPBELL; DEBRA FITZGERALD; VALERIE LANGLEY; JOHN DOE, 1; WARDEN JONES, Pender Correctional; WARDEN HERRING, Maury Correctional; DR. LEWIS; DR. FAULCON; NURSE WEBB; JANE DOE 2, Lead Nurse Maury Correctional; JOHN AND JANE DOES 3-9, Pender and Maury Correctional; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 10 - 14; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 15-25; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 26-35; 36 JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.
Kenneth Ray Creel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dotson Maldonado, BATTEN MCLAMB SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Dr. Arthur Campbell.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 22, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03243-BO)
Kenneth Ray Creel, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer Dotson Maldonado, BATTEN MCLAMB SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Dr. Arthur Campbell.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Creel seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his request for class certification and denying appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. 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 Creel seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and Creel did not timely seek permission to appeal the denial of class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f). See Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188, 193 (2019) (concluding that time limitation in Rule 23(f) must be "rigorous[ly] enforce[d]"). 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