USCA4 Appeal: 22-2002 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2002

TAQI EYR HHAMUAL HESED EL a/k/a Bro T. Hesed-El, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBIN BRYSON, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, in his individual and official capacity; MISSION HOSPITAL, INC.; ANC HEALTHCARE, INC.; ADAM HERZOG, Employee of Mission Hospital and/or ANC; STIRLING BARLOW, Employee of Mission Hospital and/or ANC, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Hospital Does 1-20, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00305-MR-WCM)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2002 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Bro T. Hesed-El, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Samuel Daniels, PATLA, STRAUS, ROBINSON & MOORE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina; Phillip Theodore Jackson, Daniel H. Walsh, ROBERTS & STEVENS, PA, Asheville, North Carolina; Adam F. Peoples, HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2002 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Bro. T. Hesed-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some Defendants outright and dismissing certain of his claims against the remaining Defendants.

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 Hesed-El seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

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