USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6935

STERLING L. SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN, Defendants - Appellees, and SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.

Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-RMG-MHC)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, ELLIOTT, TYLER & SALEEBY, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6935 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s July 26, 2022, order granting in part and denying in part Singleton’s motion to extend the discovery deadline, and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation—entered the same day—pertaining to Singleton’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 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).

Neither the appealed-from order nor the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation qualifies as a final order, given that litigation on Singleton’s claims against the remaining Defendants is ongoing, and they likewise do not qualify as appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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