Albert Anderson v. Foothills Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6557 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6557 ALBERT ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOTHILLS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; HUDGINS, Sergeant; MOTLEY, Correctional Officer; ABERNATHY, Correction Officer; JUSTICE, Lieutenant; CAMPBELL, Lieutenant; JOHNSON, Assistant Unit Manager; PRICE, Unit Manager; JONES, Correction Officer; FREEMAN, Captain; WHISNANT, Correction Officer; HUDGINS, Correction Officer; DOUG NEWTON, Warden; REEP, Warden; JOHN DOES 1-2, Correctional Officers, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cv-00088-MR) Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025 Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6557 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Albert Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and granting him leave to file an amended complaint. * He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. 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 orders Anderson seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief and his motion to waive filing or modification at the discretion of the court, and 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 * No final judgment has been entered in the district court. 2