Alkein Coates v. Sgt. Aladekere

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6869
ALKEIN COATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. ALADEKERE; O. CHIMA, C/O II Patuxent; SIA KAIMACHIANDE, C/O II
Patuxent; CAPTAIN T. CARTER; SGT. MARTIN, Property OFC; TRANSIT
OFCS, on July 26, 2024; SERGEANTS, who did visits; MS. SARAH, Med. Doctor,
Patuxent; MEDICAL DOCTOR, L-1 and MC-1; SGT. DAWN HALSEY;
ADEBUKOLA ADEWOLE; FRANKLIN WRIGHT; OFC. YABO; A.W.
KIMBERLY STEWARD,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MR. GASPHER; PATUXENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02022-PX)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Alkein Coates, Appellant Pro Se. Katie M. Pennell, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Alkein Coates seeks to appeal a notice issued by the district court’s clerk’s office
advising him that the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action had filed a motion to
dismiss.* The State Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 notice Coates seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny Coates’s motion for appointment of counsel, grant the State
Appellees’ motion to dismiss, 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
* The notice informed Coates that the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss and
advised him of his right to respond to the motion. Coates’s case currently remains pending
in the district court.

-- 3 of 3 --