Charlie Hardin v. Elizabeth Peake, No. 23-6308 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6308 CHARLIE L. HARDIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH JOI PEAKE; KATY POOLE, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCOTLAND; OFFICER WILEY; QUEEN GERALD; CAPTAIN COVINGTON; MUNGO; OFFICER ADAMS; OFFICER BEATHE; OFFICER NEAL; HARRISON; OFFICER DOUGLAS; OFFICER WHITE; SGT. LOCKLEAR; SGT. PIERCE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:22-cv-00691-WO-JLW) Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie L. Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlie L. Hardin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that the district court dismiss his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). * 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, 545-47 (1949). The report Hardin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hardin’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 The magistrate judge issued both an order granting Hardin in forma pauperis status and a report recommending that the district court dismiss his civil action. Hardin’s appeal does not pertain to the order granting him in forma pauperis status. * 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.