USCA4 Appeal: 22-1078 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/04/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1078

MICHAEL WAYNE BRIDGETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KENNETH FITCH; PHYLIS REINARD; DEBORAH HEIM; MARY FRYE; DEBORAH MONROE; ALAN RIVKIN; HOWARD KILIAN; DEBORAH GARLITZ; MARK HENRY, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN; SECRETARY DAVID R. BRINKLEY; STATE TREASURER NANCY KOPP, Chairman of the SRPS Board of Trustees c/o Office of the Attorney General; STATE COMPTROLLER PETER FRANCHOT, Vice Chair of SRPS Board of Trustees c/o Office of Attorney General; SRPS BOARD OF TRUSTEES PENSION SYSTEM, c/o Office of Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-02817-PJM)

Submitted: April 28, 2022 Decided: May 4, 2022

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1078 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/04/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Bridgett, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Dean Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1078 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/04/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Michael Wayne Bridgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss in this multi-party civil action regarding prescription drug benefits for Maryland retirees. 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 Bridgett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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