USCA4 Appeal: 23-7225 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7225

STEPHEN NIVENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; BALTIMORE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; LIEUTENANT BLEVINS, Baltimore County Detention Center Correctional Dietary Officer; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; WILLIAM BOHRER, Warden; DIRECTOR O’NEIL, Baltimore County Detention Center,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

TEHUM CARE SERVICES, INC., f/k/a Corizon Health, Inc.; YESCARE; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; UNNAMED INFECTION CONTROL LPN; ADAORA N. ODENZE, Director of Nursing Services; JOSEPH A. EZEIT, Director of Inmate Health Care Administration; SHARON L. BAUCOM, M.D., Chief Medical Director; JENNIFER MELLOTT, RN; BECKY BARNHART, RN, Assistant Director of Nursing,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-02298-ELH)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7225 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Nivens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7225 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Nivens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not

all, of the claims raised in his

complaint. 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 Nivens 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

3