Lanika Williams v. Myrtle Beach Police Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6238
LANIKA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DAMONNI CLAYTON; JAZMYN ROWELL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MYRTLE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH;
BRENDA BETHUNE, in her individual capacity; HORRY COUNTY
SOLICITOR’S OFFICE; NANCY LIVESAY, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:25-cv-03442-JD-TER)
Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
LaNika Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Matthew Johnson, CHANDLER LAW
GROUP LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
LaNika Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, dismissing her as a Plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and
allowing the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs to proceed. Appellees have moved to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Williams opposes dismissal.
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 Williams seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See
Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2021) (“Ordinarily, a district court order is not
final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” (emphasis and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion 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
* We do not consider Appellees’ alternative argument that the appeal is moot.

-- 3 of 3 --