Marshall Leon Watkins v. Nurse Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7486
MARSHALL LEON WATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NURSE JONES; LIEUTENANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT SURRATT; SGT.
LAWLESS; LIEUTENANT BLACKWELL; LT. TAYLOR; MS. PHYALL;
JAMES SIMMONS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KEVIN CROSS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00135-MGL-PJG)
Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Leon Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Raymond Kropski, EARHART
OVERSTREET LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Leon Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and ruling on his claims against Appellees. 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. § 1291 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not rule on Watkins’ claims
against Kevin Cross. Thus, the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th
Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the
case to the district court so that the court can consider Watkins’ claims against Cross.
We also deny Watkins’ motions to investigate, to review argument, and to contact the
district court about video tape evidence.
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 AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --