USCA4 Appeal: 22-6488 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6488

DAVID MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; U.S. DISTRICT JUDGES; U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGES; U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOI PEAKE; CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE; SENIOR U.S. JUDGES, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; CLERK JOHN BRUBAKER, Greensboro Division, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00207-MOC)

Submitted: October 7, 2022 Decided: November 2, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6488 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: David Meyers seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and has filed a second notice of appeal without designating the order being appealed. 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 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Because the district court has not resolved any of Meyers’ claims and there is no final order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Meyers’ motion for leave to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act without prepayment of fees as moot. Meyers’ motions to direct the district court to accept his handwritten complaints, to consolidate, and for an extension of time are also denied as moot. 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