Roger Coley v. Eric Hooks

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:18-cv-00361-TDS-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000356435]. Mailed to: Roger Coley. [18-6604]

Appeal: 18-6604

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6604

ROGER EARL COLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC A. HOOKS; SGT. MR. LEWIS; OFFICER LOCKLEAR; MS. ALMOND,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:18-cv-00361-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: August 23, 2018

Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6604

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order and
recommendation to deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss Coley’s action without
prejudice. 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 Coley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. ∗ See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012); Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187,
187 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen
Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we 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

∗

Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice before we
considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional
defect. Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 2015)
(recognizing that doctrine of cumulative finality applies only where order appealed could
have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th
Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory
decision” cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks
omitted)).

2