John Hudson v. Rosemary Biancardi

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6079 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6079 JOHN SCOTT HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROSEMARY E. BIANCARDI; CORY D. COLLINS; TIMOTHY VIGUS, Defendants - Appellees, and MEGAN L. LOCKLEAR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-ct-03445-M-RJ) Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Scott Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Florencio Castro, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6079 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: John Scott Hudson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to compel discovery and directing him to file discovery requests directly with the defendants in his civil action, not the district court. 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 Hudson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 541 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Discovery orders are inherently interlocutory and typically not appealable.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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