Richard A. Smith, Jr. v. CO SINES, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6241
RICHARD A. SMITH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CO SINES, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer; CO JOHN DOE
NO. 1, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer; CO JOHN DOE NO.
2, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00154-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing on
initial review his complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it
has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the
claims raised in the complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address
Smith’s deliberate-indifference claim alleging that he was deprived of medical care before
and after his trip to the hospital. We conclude that the order Smith 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 remand to the district court for consideration of the
unresolved claim. Id. at 699.
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

-- 2 of 2 --