TAQI EYR HHAMUAL HESED EL a/k/a Bro T. Hesed-El v. ROBIN BRYSON, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, in his individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2002
TAQI EYR HHAMUAL HESED EL a/k/a Bro T. Hesed-El,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBIN BRYSON, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, in his individual and official
capacity; MISSION HOSPITAL, INC.; ANC HEALTHCARE, INC.; ADAM
HERZOG, Employee of Mission Hospital and/or ANC; STIRLING BARLOW,
Employee of Mission Hospital and/or ANC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE, Hospital Does 1-20, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00305-MR-WCM)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Bro T. Hesed-El, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Samuel Daniels, PATLA, STRAUS,
ROBINSON & MOORE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina; Phillip Theodore Jackson, Daniel
H. Walsh, ROBERTS & STEVENS, PA, Asheville, North Carolina; Adam F. Peoples,
HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Bro. T. Hesed-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some
Defendants outright and dismissing certain of his claims against the remaining Defendants.
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 Hesed-El 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 --