Sterling L. Singleton v. Frank Richardson; Warden Joyner; Wayne Bowman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6935
STERLING L. SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP;
WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-RMG-MHC)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES,
ELLIOTT, TYLER & SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Jerome Scott
Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s July 26, 2022, order
granting in part and denying in part Singleton’s motion to extend the discovery deadline,
and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation—entered the same day—pertaining
to Singleton’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief. 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).
Neither the appealed-from order nor the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
qualifies as a final order, given that litigation on Singleton’s claims against the remaining
Defendants is ongoing, and they likewise do not qualify as 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

-- 3 of 3 --