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)
21-1266•Dean Steppello v. JOHN DOE CAPTAIN, FCI Butner 2
21-1266Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 23, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1266
DEAN STEPPELLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOE CAPTAIN, FCI Butner 2; JOHN DOE WARDEN, FCI BUTNER,
Complex Warden; HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR; LT. SHAW, FCI 1; SAI
MOORE; MS. DANIELS, Health Administrator’s Assistant; JOHN DOE, White
Male; JOHN DOE, Warden FCI 2; JOHN DOE, Warden FCI 1; JOHN DOE, Captain
FCI 1,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03238-FL)
Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dean Steppello, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Dean Steppello seeks to appeal the district court’s order noting deficiencies in his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C §§ 1346(b)(1),
2671-2680, and directing him to file an amended complaint. 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 Steppello seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Steppello’s requests for the appointment of counsel
and to transfer his case. 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.