USCA4 Appeal: 24-6157 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6157

CARLOS HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Ra Saadi Lennox Hernandez El,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEAN LOCKLEAR, Superintendent/Warden of Scotland Correctional Institution, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, (SRG) Staff-Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Sergeant, Walker, Staff- Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, K-9, John Doe, Staff, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John Doe) Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, Staff (John Doe) Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, (DHO) John Doe, Member, Officer, in their individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:24-cv-00003-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6157 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Hernandez seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report in which the

magistrate judge recommended dismissing Hernandez’s

action for failure

to state a claim. 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

magistrate judge’s report does not qualify as a final order, or as an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order, and review of the district court’s docket confirms that Hernandez did

not file a separate notice of appeal following issuance of the district court’s dispositive

order adopting the report and recommendation. We further observe that the doctrine of

“cumulative finality”—which “authorizes us to exercise appellate jurisdiction where all

claims as to all parties are disposed of while the appeal is pending, and where the district

court could have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),” Williamson v. Stirling,

(4th Cir. 2018)—

does not cure this jurisdictional defect.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hernandez’s

motion for summary judgment. 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