Bakha Yawuti El v. City of Myrtle Beach

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2003
BAKHA YAWUTI EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH; CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DAVID GIOSA; L. BOYLES; AMY SUTTER, City of Myrtle
Beach Municipal Court Clerk; JOI PAGE, City of Myrtle Beach Assistant City
Attorney; BRENDA BETHUNE, City of Myrtle Beach Mayor; JENNIFER
PETERS-WILSON, City of Myrtle Beach Municipal Court Judge; JOHN SCOTT
LONG, City of Myrtle Beach Municipal Court Judge; M. WINNERS, City of Myrtle
Beach Police Officer; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:22-cv-00997-DCN-MHC)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bakha Yawuti El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bakha Yawuti El seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate
judge’s order identifying numerous pleading deficiencies in Yawuti El’s pro se complaint,
directing Yawuti El to correct the identified deficiencies and bring his case in proper form
for service of process, and warning Yawuti El that his failure to comply with the order
would result in the magistrate judge recommending that the district court dismiss Yawuti
El’s action with prejudice and without leave for further amendment. 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 Yawuti 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

-- 2 of 2 --