Elijah Clary v. Darlene White

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-ct-03204-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627918]. Mailed to: Elijah Clary. [15-6479]

Appeal: 15-6479

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6479

ELIJAH SHANE CLARY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DARLENE WHITE; SHEILA MOORE; MS. HARRIS; DR. ATEIAT PHILIPS;
SERGEANT DEBORAH HAMM; MR. PHILIPS; MS. WHALEY; MR. FIELDS;
MR. BODY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SERGEANT HARPER; ROBERT C. LEWIS; CYNTHIA MUNDY; UNKNOWN
CUSTODY OFFICER,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:12-ct-03204-D)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Shane Clary, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly

Appeal: 15-6479

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON,
PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6479

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elijah Shane Clary seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in part in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action.

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. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
The order Clary seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3