Carlos Hernandez, a/k/a Ra Saadi Lennox Hernandez El v. DEAN LOCKLEAR, Superintendent/Warden of Scotland Correctional Institution, in their…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6157
CARLOS HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Ra Saadi Lennox Hernandez El,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEAN LOCKLEAR, Superintendent/Warden of Scotland Correctional Institution,
in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, (SRG) Staff-Officer,
in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, Walker, Staff-
Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, K-9, John Doe, Staff,
Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John Doe)
Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John
Doe) Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, (DHO)
John Doe, Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:24-cv-00003-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Hernandez seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report in which the
magistrate judge recommended dismissing Hernandez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure
to state a claim. 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
magistrate judge’s report does not qualify as a final order, or as an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order, and review of the district court’s docket confirms that Hernandez did
not file a separate notice of appeal following issuance of the district court’s dispositive
order adopting the report and recommendation. We further observe that the doctrine of
“cumulative finality”—which “authorizes us to exercise appellate jurisdiction where all
claims as to all parties are disposed of while the appeal is pending, and where the district
court could have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018)—
does not cure this jurisdictional defect.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hernandez’s
motion for summary judgment. 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 --