USCA4 Appeal: 24-6449 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6449

KENNETH RAY CREEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY JUNKER; DR. ARTHUR CAMPBELL; DEBRA FITZGERALD; VALERIE LANGLEY; JOHN DOE, 1; WARDEN JONES, Pender Correctional; WARDEN HERRING, Maury Correctional; DR. LEWIS; DR. FAULCON; NURSE WEBB; JANE DOE 2, Lead Nurse Maury Correctional; JOHN AND JANE DOES 3-9, Pender and Maury Correctional; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 10 - 14; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 15-25; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 26-35; 36 JOHN DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03243-BO)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Creel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dotson Maldonado, BATTEN MCLAMB SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Dr. Arthur Campbell.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6449 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Creel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his request for class

certification and denying appointment of counsel in his

suit. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

, and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders,

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp.,

(1949). The order Creel seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and Creel did not timely seek

permission to appeal the denial of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). See

Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert,

(2019) (concluding that time limitation

in Rule 23(f) must be “rigorous[ly] enforce[d]”). 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

2