Larry Darnell Hill, Jr. v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC; MARTHA MUNSON, a/k/a Marta Munson; MONICA CRUZ

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1651
LARRY DARNELL HILL, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC; MARTHA MUNSON, a/k/a Marta Munson; MONICA
CRUZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00032-BO)
Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Darnell Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frederick W. Rom, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Darnell Hill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’
motion to quash service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Hill seeks to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Hill’s motion
for assignment of counsel 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
* The district court docketed the notice of appeal as an appeal from its order
dismissing Hill’s action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This docket
entry was in error because Hill filed his notice of appeal several days before the district
court entered its judgment. Moreover, although the district court issued its final judgment
before we considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the
jurisdictional defect. Houck v. LifeStore Bank, 41 F.4th 266, 271 (4th Cir. 2022)
(explaining that doctrine applies only where appellant appeals order that could have been
certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).

-- 2 of 2 --