USCA4 Appeal: 22-2116 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2116

SARIA WALKER, United States of American Citizens, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INCORPORATED; PRISMA HEALTH; SAINT FRANCES DOWNTOWN; SAINT FRANCES EASTSIDE; THE CAROLINA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GREER POLICE DEPARTMENT; GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; GREENVILLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Clerk of Court; GREENLINK; GREENVILLE LIBRARY SYSTEM, Downtown and Anderson Road Branches, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-02946-HMH)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saria Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2116 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Saria Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s October 20, 2022, order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Walker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 Walker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. On October 24, 2022, the district court granted Walker’s motion to reopen the case and provided Walker 14 days to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s report.

See Walker v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, No. 6:22-cv-02946-HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2022). The case remains pending in the district court. 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