The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-7140•Anton Thurman McAllister v. Wellpath Health Care
20-7140Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 27, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7140
ANTON THURMAN MCALLISTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLPATH HEALTH CARE; ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; DOCTOR
CUNNINGHAM; DOCTOR BASHOLM; MRS. WILLIAMS; ROCKY JOYNER;
MAJOR R. E. SLATER; CAPTAIN C. WARREN; FORSYTH COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; FORSYTH COUNTY COUNCIL; HIG CAPITAL
EQUITY FIRM; DR. ALAN RHOADES; BOBBY KIMBROUGH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01034-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anton Thurman Mcallister, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Anton Thurman Mcallister seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing the majority of the claims raised in
Mcallister’s civil complaint. The court, however, explicitly allowed several of Mcallister’s
claims related to the alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs to proceed. 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 Mcallister seeks to appeal is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
Mcallister’s motion to amend the case caption and 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.