Opinion
24-6157
08-30-2024
CARLOS HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Ra Saadi Lennox Hernandez El, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEAN LOCKLEAR, Superintendent/Warden of Scotland Correctional Institution, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, (SRG) Staff-Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, Walker, Staff- Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, K-9, John Doe, Staff, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John Doe) Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John Doe) Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, (DHO) John Doe, Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
Carlos Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 27, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:24-cv-00003-CCE-LPA)
Carlos Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Carlos Hernandez seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's report in which the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Hernandez's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. 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 magistrate judge's report does not qualify as a final order, or as an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and review of the district court's docket confirms that Hernandez did not file a separate notice of appeal following issuance of the district court's dispositive order adopting the report and recommendation. We further observe that the doctrine of "cumulative finality"-which "authorizes us to exercise appellate jurisdiction where all claims as to all parties are disposed of while the appeal is pending, and where the district court could have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)," Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018)- does not cure this jurisdictional defect.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hernandez's motion for summary judgment. 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.