LaNika Williams v. Myrtle Beach Police Department

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6238 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6238

LANIKA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAMONNI CLAYTON; JAZMYN ROWELL, Plaintiffs, v. MYRTLE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH; BRENDA BETHUNE, in her individual capacity; HORRY COUNTY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE; NANCY LIVESAY, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:25-cv-03442-JD-TER)

Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6238 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

LaNika Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Matthew Johnson, CHANDLER LAW GROUP LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6238 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: LaNika Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing her as a Plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and allowing the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs to proceed. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Williams opposes dismissal.

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 Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2021) (“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion and 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

* We do not consider Appellees’ alternative argument that the appeal is moot.