794 Fed.Appx. 346 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7257, Moore v. Corpening

Docket Nº:19-7257
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 346
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Brice C. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. CORPENING, sued in his official/individual capacities; D. Watkins, sued in his official/individual capacities; Williams, Sergeant, sued in his official/individual capacities; Curtis, Sergeant, sued in his official/individual capacities; Lee, Officer, sued in his official/individual capacities; Nanny, ...
Attorney:Brice C. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 346

794 Fed.Appx. 346 (4th Cir. 2020)

Brice C. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

H. CORPENING, sued in his official/individual capacities; D. Watkins, sued in his official/individual capacities; Williams, Sergeant, sued in his official/individual capacities; Curtis, Sergeant, sued in his official/individual capacities; Lee, Officer, sued in his official/individual capacities; Nanny, Officer, sued in his official/individual capacities; Lyons, Officer, sued in his official/individual capacities; Morgan, Officer, sued in his official/individual capacities; Thomas Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-7257

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00201-FDW)

Brice C. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brice C. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights while in state custody. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). "Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties." Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate Moore’s claims against seven of the nine named Defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that the order Moore seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. Id. at 699. We dispense with oral argument because...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP