Opinion
22-7335
02-22-2023
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.
Joshua Thomas Hawkins, Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak, Hawkins & Jedziniak, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Allan DeMasters, Peter Michael Balthazor, Riley, Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Jacob Alan Biltoft, Janet Brooks Holmes, McKay Firm, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 16, 2023
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)
Joshua Thomas Hawkins, Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak, Hawkins & Jedziniak, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
David Allan DeMasters, Peter Michael Balthazor, Riley, Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Jacob Alan Biltoft, Janet Brooks Holmes, McKay Firm, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.