USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1179

CURTISS DAVIS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDWIN C. ROESSLER, JR., Chief of Police; WUSA9 News; THE WASHINGTON POST; CLINTON E. BEACH, Officer; JEREMY HOFFMAN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and SUSAN PEREZ; ANA ELIZABETH RIVERA-CRUZ; PEDRO BONILLA; EL CARBONERO, LLC, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00992-RDA-TCB)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

Curtiss Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. Brent J. Schultheis, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER & MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia; Perry F. Austin, Nicholas G. Gamse, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Curtiss Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the motions to dismiss filed by certain Defendants in Davis’ pro se civil action. * 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 that Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that litigation on his remaining claims against other Defendants is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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

* As noted in the district court’s order, three of the individual Defendants did not file motions to dismiss.