Opinion
No. 18-7486
04-10-2019
MARSHALL LEON WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NURSE JONES; LIEUTENANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT SURRATT; SGT. LAWLESS; LIEUTENANT BLACKWELL; LT. TAYLOR; MS. PHYALL; JAMES SIMMONS, Defendants - Appellees, and KEVIN CROSS, Defendant.
Marshall Leon Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Raymond Kropski, EARHART OVERSTREET LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00135-MGL-PJG) Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Leon Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Raymond Kropski, EARHART OVERSTREET LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Marshall Leon Watkins seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and ruling on his claims against Appellees. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not rule on Watkins' claims against Kevin Cross. Thus, the district court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court so that the court can consider Watkins' claims against Cross. We also deny Watkins' motions to investigate, to review argument, and to contact the district court about video tape evidence.
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 AND REMANDED