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)
22-7238•Larry Michael Slusser v. United States of America
22-7238Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7238
LARRY MICHAEL SLUSSER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MS. MORALES, Correctional officer;
ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON: DR. ANTHONY TIMMS; MEDICAL STAFF MS.
WALTON-BATTLE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:21-cv-02431-DCC-PJG)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Michael Slusser, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Michael Slusser seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to one
Defendant on Slusser’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and granting the remaining Defendants’
motion to dismiss all claims except Slusser’s negligence claim pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. 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 Slusser seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor 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.