Daniel Lipscomb v. James Whitley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 22-6801
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6801

DANIEL T. LIPSCOMB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT JAMES F. WHITLEY; LIEUTENANT SAVILLE; CAPTAIN HEATH CUSTER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

KIM BENSON, Jail Investigator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BURRELL; LIEUTENANT COOPER; LIEUTENANT DERITO; SERGEANT MACKEY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00411-EKD-PMS)

Submitted: February 6, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Daniel T. Lipscomb, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, Brittany Elizabeth Shipley, TIMBERLAKE SMITH, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Daniel T. Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying Defendants’

motion for summary judgment pending further briefing. 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 Lipscomb seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly, we grant

Lipscomb’s motion to amend his informal brief and 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

* To the extent that Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s final order, his premature filing is insufficient to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005).