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)
22-6891•Brandon Michael Pickens v. STEVEN HENDRICKS, Officer
22-6891Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6891
BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN HENDRICKS, Officer, in his official capacity and individual capacity;
QUENTIN MILLER, in his official capacity as Buncombe County Sheriff;
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY; J. D. LAMBERT, Deputy, in his individual
capacity; JEFF MAY, Deputy, in his individual capacity; KATHERINE LEWIS,
Deputy, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00030-MR)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis William Euler, BUNCOMBE
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina; Eric Patrick Edgerton,
CITY OF ASHEVILLE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Michael Pickens seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (a) granting
Defendant Hendricks’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; and (b) denying Pickens’
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that ruling and disposing of various other
motions. 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 orders that
Pickens seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor are they appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Accordingly, 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.