Sterling L. Singleton v. Scdc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6191
STERLING L. SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; FRANK RICHARDSON;
WARDEN JOYNER; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE
TISDALE; WAYNE BOWMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-JMC-MHC)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Arlene Thomas, RICHARDSON
PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Samuel F. Arthur, III,
AIKEN, BRIDGES, ELLIOTT, TYLER & SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina;
Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (a) denying
Singleton’s motion to stay adjudication of a pending motion for summary judgment; and
(b) granting the motion for summary judgment filed by certain Defendants in Singleton’s
pro se 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). The orders
that Singleton seeks to appeal are neither final orders, given that litigation on his 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 deny
Singleton’s motion for a transcript at government expense. 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
* As noted in the district court’s order, three Defendants did not join the summary
judgment motion.

-- 2 of 2 --