Stephen Nivens v. Secretary of the Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7225
STEPHEN NIVENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY &
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; BALTIMORE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER;
LIEUTENANT BLEVINS, Baltimore County Detention Center Correctional
Dietary Officer; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; RICHARD DOVEY, Warden;
WILLIAM BOHRER, Warden; DIRECTOR O’NEIL, Baltimore County Detention
Center,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TEHUM CARE SERVICES, INC., f/k/a Corizon Health, Inc.; YESCARE;
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES;
UNNAMED INFECTION CONTROL LPN; ADAORA N. ODENZE, Director of
Nursing Services; JOSEPH A. EZEIT, Director of Inmate Health Care
Administration; SHARON L. BAUCOM, M.D., Chief Medical Director; JENNIFER
MELLOTT, RN; BECKY BARNHART, RN, Assistant Director of Nursing,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-02298-ELH)
Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Nivens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Nivens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not
all, of the claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 Nivens seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 --