Opinion
21-7552
01-25-2022
TIMOTHY D. KING-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILSON, Sgt., Correctional Officer, in his Individual and Official Capacities; SAINT T. TAPP, Unit Manager Assistant, in his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and JEFFERY E. JAMES, Unit Manager, in his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant.
Timothy D. King-El, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 20, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00229-MR)
Timothy D. King-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy D. King-El has filed a notice of appeal in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The notice of appeal does not identify the order that King-El seeks to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final decisions, 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 district court has not yet issued a final decision in King-El's action. See Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 408-09 (2015) (describing "final decision"). Nor has the district court issued any immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral order over which we may exercise jurisdiction.
As this court explained in King-El's prior interlocutory appeal, the district court's dismissal of King-El's request for injunctive relief was immediately appealable, but we lacked jurisdiction to review that decision on an interlocutory basis because King-El's notice of appeal was not timely filed. King-El v. Wilson, 840 Fed.Appx. 751, 752 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 20-7837).
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