U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013

Alexander Matthews v. Ted Hull

Alexander Matthews v. Ted Hull
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 25, 2013 · Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Thacker
544 F. App'x 226

Alexander Matthews v. Ted Hull

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to remand, and granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed Matthews to file a particularized complaint regarding claims of cruel and unusual punishment and denial of access to the courts. The court also directed Matthews to include a statement regarding exhaustion of these claims. 1 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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). 2 The order Matthews seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appel-lees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory 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.

1

. Matthews complied with the order and the case is proceeding in the district court.

2

. The district court did not certify the order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.