Calderon v. Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7834
CARLOS CALDERON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BISHOP L. ROBINSON, individually and in his
official capacity as Secretary, DPSCS; RICHARD
A. LANHAM, individually and in his official
capacity as Commissioner, DPSCS; ALVIN G.
JOHNSON, individually and in his official
capacity as Correctional Officer IV of the
Maryland Department of Corrections at MTSC;
RICHARD SINGLETARY, Security Chief; T. RUFFIN,
CO III; T. BOWLING, CO IV, each individually
and in their official capacities as officers
of the Maryland Department of Corrections;
WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; HOLLIS S. THOMPSON,
Asst. Warden; LUKE MONTGOMERY, CO V; ANDREW J.
JOHNSON, CO IV; ALICIA SHELTON, CO IV; K.
HAIRSTON, CO III; C. DORSEY, CO II; JOHN
SANDERS, CO II; BARRY FLACK, CO I; L. BROWN,
CO II; STEPHEN MCDONOUGH, CO I; S. KELLY,
CO I; R. BROSEKER, CO II; G. LUTZ, CO V;
T. JEFFRIES, CO VI, each individually and in
their official capacities as officers of the
Maryland Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
96-3316-PJM)
Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997
Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Calderon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all Defendants,
but maintaining his claim of deliberate indifference to medical
needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3