Alton Chisolm v. S.c. Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6599
ALTON CHISOLM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; S.C.D.C. GENERAL
COUNSEL, With all of its members; BRYAN STIRLING, S.C.D.C. Director;
S.C.D.C. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL; WARDEN JAMES; A.W. SMITH; A.W.
MCDUFFY; MAJOR MEEKS; SGT. CROWLEY; NURSE MILLER; WARDEN
STONEBREAKER; UNITED STATES CONGRESS, And all members contained
therein; CATHOLIC ARCH DIOCESE AND POPE; MR. LAWRENZ, Director of
the Well Path Center; WELL PATH CENTER; 194 MEMBER STATES OF THE
UNITED NATIONS; COUNTY OF RICHLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY
OF KERSHAW; COUNTY OF HORRY; ADAIR FORD BUROUGHS, Federal
Attorney for the State of South Carolina, U.S. Attorney; UNITED STATES
SENATE, And all members contained therein,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:25-cv-01528-BHH-MHC)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Alton Chisolm, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Alton Chisolm seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) separating his complaint
from three co-plaintiffs and (2) denying his motions for the appointment of counsel, recusal
of the district court judge, recusal of the magistrate judge, appointment of a new magistrate
judge, an extension of time, permission to intervene, consolidation of cases, complex case
designation, and various other forms of relief.* 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 orders Chisolm seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. 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
* Chisolm has also filed motions in this court to remand; to consolidate this appeal
with docket numbers 25-6598, 25-1840, and 25-6602; to vacate; for acceptance; for judicial
notice; for a preliminary injunction; for a temporary restraining order; for sanctions; for a
declaratory judgment; to submit additional evidence; and to supplement his motions. We
grant Chisolm’s motion for acceptance of his corrected, signed notice of appeal, and deny
all remaining motions.

-- 3 of 3 --