John Jandrew v. Doctor Corigan

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6999 Doc: 46 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6999 JOHN P. JANDREW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR CORIGAN; MEDICAL DIRECTOR, Wellpath, in their individual and official capacity; DOE DISCOVERY; OFFICER BAILEY, Housing Officer, member of Perk Team, in their individual and official capacity; OFFICER KEHELY, in their individual and official capacity; OFFICER LENARD, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-00800-WO-JLW) Submitted: November 4, 2025 Decided: November 24, 2025 Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John P. Jandrew, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Bryant Milak, TEAGUE, CAMPBELL, DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6999 Doc: 46 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: John P. Jandrew seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing all but one of Jandrew’s claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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 Jandrew seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Jandrew’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 17) and Defendant Kevin John Corrigan’s motion to strike (ECF No. 41), 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 2