Dmitry Pronin v. Lieutenant Troy Johnson ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7562
    DMITRY PRONIN,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    LIEUTENANT   TROY  JOHNSON;   OFFICER   FLOURNOY;  OFFICER
    MIDDLEBROOK; OFFICER WILSON; OFFICER CRAWFORD; KENNETH
    ATKINSON; DANIEL FALLEN; REX BLOCKER; LOUISA FUERTES-
    RASARIO; SANDRA K. LATHROP; JAKE BURKETT; BRANDON BURKETT;
    JOHN BRYANT; PATINA WALTON-GRIER; HENRI WALL; EDWARD
    HAMPTON; WILLIAM JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT EDA OLIVERA-NEGRON,
    Operations,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    SHU STAFF MEMBERS,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (5:12-cv-03416-DCN)
    Submitted:   February 16, 2017            Decided:   February 22, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,       DUNCAN,      Circuit   Judge,   and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dmitry Pronin, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Dmitry Pronin appeals the district court’s notice regarding
    his right to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949).                  The
    order Pronin 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7562

Filed Date: 2/22/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021