Opinion
22-6191
09-13-2022
STERLING L. SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE; WAYNE BOWMAN, Defendants - Appellees.
Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Arlene Thomas, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN &ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, ELLIOTT, TYLER &SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 8, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-JMC-MHC)
Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Arlene Thomas, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN &ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, ELLIOTT, TYLER &SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the district court's orders (a) denying Singleton's motion to stay adjudication of a pending motion for summary judgment; and (b) granting the motion for summary judgment filed by certain Defendants in Singleton's pro se civil action. 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 orders that Singleton seeks to appeal are neither final orders, given that litigation on his claims against the remaining Defendants is ongoing,[*] nor are they appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Singleton's motion for a transcript at government expense. 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
[*] As noted in the district court's order, three Defendants did not join the summary judgment motion.