Malcom Ryidu-X v. Maryland Division of Correctio

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999666136-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01735-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703291]. Mailed to: Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - HAGERSTOWN 18601 Roxbury Road Hagerstown, MD 21746-0000. [15-7110]

Appeal: 15-7110

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7110

MALCOM MAXWELL RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND
DIVISION
OF
CORRECTION;
WESTERN
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION;
JOHN
DOE,
Inmate
Commissary
Supervisor;
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION- HAGERSTOWN; LEE ANN
CRAWFORD, Office Secretary II; MAUREEN REID, Case Management
Supervisor; JOHN DOE, Keefe employee who processes inmate
requests; TONY UNKNOWN, Inmate Commissary Supervisor for
MCI-H; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01735-WDQ)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X, Appellant Pro
Lane-Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Se.
Stephanie Judith
GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7110

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

some,

but

not

all,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).

of

his

claims

brought

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 Ryidu-X

seeks

nor

to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.

order

an

appealable

Accordingly, we deny Ryidu-

X’s motion for preliminary injunction and 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

2