Osha A. Johnson v. Lieutenant Marquita McCullough

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6757
OSHA A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT MARQUITA MCCULLOUGH; LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER
TIMMONS; LIEUTENANT DESMOND WESTON; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON;
LIEUTENANT MCKISSACK; CAPTAIN DAMON GREENE; CAPTAIN ANNIE
MCCULLOUGH; ASSOCIATE WARDEN COMMANDER; ASSOCIATE
WARDEN TISDALL; WARDEN JACKSON; REGIONAL DIRECTOR
WILLIAMS; DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STIRLING; GOVERNOR HENRY
MCMASTER; DHO BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:23-cv-03368-JFA-KDW)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Osha A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Grayson Lambert, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina; Daniel C. Plyler,
SMITH ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Osha A. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and denying Johnson’s motion for a temporary restraining order;
granting Defendant McMaster’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s supplemental complaint; and
granting in part and denying in part the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
supplemental complaint, thus allowing certain claims to proceed. Litigation on Johnson’s
remaining claims is still ongoing in the district court.
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 Johnson seeks to
appeal is neither a final order ending the litigation on the merits nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. 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

-- 3 of 3 --