Desmond Denzel Allen v. City of Columbia; Columbia Police Department; Nicholas Q. Sexton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6767
DESMOND DENZEL ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COLUMBIA; COLUMBIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; NICHOLAS Q.
SEXTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (3:25-cv-01354-MGL)
Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Desmond Denzel Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Desmond Denzel Allen seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
the district court that Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint be dismissed. 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 recommendation is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.∗ Accordingly, we deny
Allen’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
∗ Although the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report before we
considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional
defect. Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347–48 (4th Cir.
1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed from
could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288
(4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory
decision” cannot be saved under the doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation
marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 2 --