USCA4 Appeal: 24-6757 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6757

OSHA A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT MARQUITA MCCULLOUGH; LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER TIMMONS; LIEUTENANT DESMOND WESTON; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON; LIEUTENANT MCKISSACK; CAPTAIN DAMON GREENE; CAPTAIN ANNIE MCCULLOUGH; ASSOCIATE WARDEN COMMANDER; ASSOCIATE WARDEN TISDALL; WARDEN JACKSON; REGIONAL DIRECTOR WILLIAMS; DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STIRLING; GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; DHO BROWN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:23-cv-03368-JFA-KDW)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Osha A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Grayson Lambert, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina; Daniel C. Plyler, SMITH ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, USCA4 Appeal: 24-6757 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6757 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Osha A. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying Johnson’s motion for a temporary restraining order; granting Defendant McMaster’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s supplemental complaint; and granting in part and denying in part the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint, thus allowing certain claims to proceed. Litigation on Johnson’s remaining claims is still ongoing in the district court.

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 Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order ending the litigation on the merits 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