Sterling L. Singleton v. Frank Richardson; Warden Joyner; Wayne Bowman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1234
STERLING L. SINGLETON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-JMC-MHC)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski,
HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders (a) denying
Singleton’s motion to appoint counsel; and (b) denying Singleton’s five motions to compel
discovery. 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 orders that
Singleton seeks to appeal are neither final orders, given that litigation on his remaining
claims against the remaining Defendants is ongoing, nor are they appealable interlocutory
or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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 --