UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7099
ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TED HULL; R. MICHELLE LEWIS; SERGEANT MARTIN; JOHN/JANE
DOE, Recreation Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Director of
Medical Services; JOHN/JANE DOE, Cleaning Supervisor;
JOHN/JANE DOE, Food Services Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE,
Unit Nurse; NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL BOARD AUTHORITY
MEMBERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00450-LO-JFA)
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn,
Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to remand, and granting in part
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed Matthews
to file a particularized complaint regarding claims of cruel and
unusual punishment and denial of access to the courts. The
court also directed Matthews to include a statement regarding
exhaustion of these claims. 1 This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 2 The order Matthews
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the
Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory 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
1
Matthews complied with the order and the case is
proceeding in the district court.
2
The district court did not certify the order under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b).
2