Derrick Toomer v. Warden

Fourth Circuit

Derrick Toomer v. Warden

581 F. App'x 294

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2014

Docket14-6284

StatusUnpublished

This text of 581 F. App'x 294 (Derrick Toomer v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Derrick Toomer v. Warden, 581 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Toomer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”), Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), * and two prison officials. *295 The district court dismissed the complaint against one prison official, granted summary judgment to the remaining Defendants, and directed the Clerk to amend the docket to include a new Defendant — Corizon Medical Services (“Corizon”). Toomer appeals this order, and the DPSCS and the prison officials have moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Toomer seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as the claims against Corizon remain pending in the district court. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Although the remaining Defendants did not move to dismiss, we nevertheless dismiss the appeal in its entirety, as we do not have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 229-30 (4th Cir.2012) (holding that this court is required to inquire into its jurisdiction sua sponte). Finally, we deny Toomer’s pending motions.

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.

*

Although the district court’s docket and our docket both designate the corporation as "Wexford Medical Health Care Provider,” Wexford states that the correct name of the corporation is Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Toomer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”), Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), * and two prison officials. *295 The district court dismissed the complaint against one prison official, granted summary judgment to the remaining Defendants, and directed the Clerk to amend the docket to include a new Defendant — Corizon Medical Services (“Corizon”). Toomer appeals this order, and the DPSCS and the prison officials have moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Toomer seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as the claims against Corizon remain pending in the district court. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Although the remaining Defendants did not move to dismiss, we nevertheless dismiss the appeal in its entirety, as we do not have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 229-30 (4th Cir.2012) (holding that this court is required to inquire into its jurisdiction sua sponte). Finally, we deny Toomer’s pending motions.

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.

*

Although the district court’s docket and our docket both designate the corporation as "Wexford Medical Health Care Provider,” Wexford states that the correct name of the corporation is Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 F. App'x 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derrick-toomer-v-warden-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack