Marcus Satterfield v. J.F. Seifert

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2024
• Docket: 24-6279
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6279 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6279

MARCUS ANTONIO SATTERFIELD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

POLICE OFFICER J. F. SEIFERT, NOW DETECTIVE; ROXBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-00143-WO-JLW)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Antonio Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, HARTZOG LAW GROUP LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6279 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Antonio Satterfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’

motion to dismiss Satterfield’s complaint. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as

to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court has not adjudicated all the

claims raised in the complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the district court allowed

Satterfield’s claims against Defendant Seifert to proceed, in that the court granted

Satterfield an extension of time to properly serve Seifert. Those claims remain pending in

the district court. And the portions of the district court’s order denying Satterfield’s

motions to amend the complaint and denying his request for appointment of counsel are

not immediately appealable. See Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, 90 F.4th 158, 165 n.3 (4th Cir.

2024) (motion to amend); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (motion

for appointment of counsel). We therefore conclude that the order Satterfield seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6279 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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