Thomas Farmer v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 26-6348
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6348 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6348

THOMAS LEE FARMER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN R. BROWN, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer (FCI-Gilmer); CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer (FCI-Gilmer),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00221-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lee Farmer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-6348 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s (1) February 2, 2026, order

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the defendants’

motion for summary judgment, and dismissing with prejudice Farmer’s amended

complaint, and (2) March 5, 2026, order granting Farmer’s pro se Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion for relief from the February 2, 2026, order, and reopening the case. 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 Farmer seeks to appeal are neither final

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. * See Hayes Fam. Tr. v. State Farm

Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th Cir. 2017); Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160,

1161 (9th Cir. 2000). 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

* The district court’s February 2, 2026, order would have been a final appealable order had the district court not granted Farmer’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from that order before Farmer filed his notice of appeal.