U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2023

Randle Jackson v. Captain Livingston

Randle Jackson v. Captain Livingston
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 22, 2023

Randle Jackson v. Captain Livingston

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7335

RANDLE JACKSON, individually and as the Personal Representative for the Estate of Dashaun Simmons, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN LIVINGSTON; ANTHONY HOWARD HALL; CAPTAIN REESE, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

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

Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-01656-DCC-SVH)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Thomas Hawkins, Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak, HAWKINS & JEDZINIAK, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Allan DeMasters, Peter Michael USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Balthazor, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Jacob Alan Biltoft, Janet Brooks Holmes, MCKAY FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7335 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Randle Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissing all but one defendant in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. 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 Jackson 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 Jackson’s motion to remand 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.