Marcus Satterfield v. T. J. Knaub ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6295 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6295
MARCUS ANTONIO SATTERFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER T. J. KNAUB, Police Officer of the R.P.D. Roxboro; ROXBORO
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-00144-WO-JLW)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Antonio Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, HARTZOG
LAW GROUP LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6295 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Antonio Satterfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing in part Satterfield’s amended
complaint. 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). “Ordinarily, a district
court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803
F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court has not adjudicated all the
claims raised in the amended complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, although the district
court dismissed Satterfield’s Bivens * claim against Defendant T. J. Knaub, it did not
dismiss Satterfield’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against him. That claim remains pending in
the district court. Moreover, the portions of the district court’s order denying Satterfield’s
motions to further amend the complaint and denying his request for appointment of counsel
are not immediately appealable. See Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, 90 F.4th 158, 165 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2024) (motion to amend); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987)
(motion for appointment of counsel). We therefore conclude that the order Satterfield
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388(1971).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6295 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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