Malcolm Muhammad v. MS. ALLEN, Medical Regional Administrator

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6388
MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. ALLEN, Medical Regional Administrator,
Defendant - Appellee,
I. T. GILMORE, Warden; J. ADAMS, Unit Manager; ASSISTANT WARDEN
WHITE; MAJOR RUFFIN; E. WITT, Grievance Coordinator; JOHN O’DONALD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00773-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: March 7, 2024 Decided: March 20, 2024
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Taylor Denslow Brewer, MORAN REEVES &
CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Ms. Allen.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to a defendant in his civil action. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not ‘final’ until it has resolved all claims
as to all parties.’” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). “‘[S]o long as the
matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal.’”
Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 792 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (published order).
The order that Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Specifically, our review of the record reveals that the
district court has not adjudicated the claims against all defendants, and the matter is still
pending. 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

-- 2 of 2 --