USCA4 Appeal: 22-6944 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6944

DANIEL PATRICK DEGOTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN; LT. GOVERNOR BOYD K. RUTHERFORD; SECRETARY ROBERT N. NEAL; DETECTIVE KROUCH; STATE’S ATTORNEY SCOTT D. SHELLENBERGER; PERCY WASSERMAN, Assistant State’s Attorney; DIANNA E. ABRAMOWSKI; KIM METCALF; COLLEEN A.

CAVANAUGH; JUDGE ENSOR; JUDGE HOLLANDER; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE COX; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAKUBOWSKI; CLERK STEPHON JOE; PUBLIC DEFENDER DEWOLFE; TANYA C. BERNSTEIN, Maryland Commission on Judicial Disability Director; FUCETOLA, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission Counsel; PICCININI, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission Counsel; ROBIN WOOLFORD; WILLIAM BOHRER, Warden; OFFICER T. LEACH; OFFICER SHANNON SINGLETON; NURSE ELIZABETH; DOCTOR CONTAH NIMELY; CLAUDIA HOWARD; GEORGETTE G. HUGHES, Defendants - Appellees.

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

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00057-PJM)

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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6944 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Patrick Degoto, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6944 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Daniel Patrick Degoto seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not all, of the Defendants named in Degoto’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 Degoto seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Degoto’s motion to appoint counsel. 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