Kenneth Creel v. Gary Junker ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6449 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6449
KENNETH RAY CREEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GARY JUNKER; DR. ARTHUR CAMPBELL; DEBRA FITZGERALD;
VALERIE LANGLEY; JOHN DOE, 1; WARDEN JONES, Pender Correctional;
WARDEN HERRING, Maury Correctional; DR. LEWIS; DR. FAULCON;
NURSE WEBB; JANE DOE 2, Lead Nurse Maury Correctional; JOHN AND
JANE DOES 3-9, Pender and Maury Correctional; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 10 -
14; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 15-25; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 26-35; 36 JOHN
DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03243-BO)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Ray Creel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dotson Maldonado, BATTEN MCLAMB
SMITH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Dr. Arthur Campbell.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6449 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Creel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his request for class
certification and denying appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. 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 Creel seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and Creel did not timely seek
permission to appeal the denial of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). See
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188, 193 (2019) (concluding that time limitation
in Rule 23(f) must be “rigorous[ly] enforce[d]”). 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
2