Nathaniel Rice v. US, No. 13-7444 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7444 NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAYMON BYRD, Senior Officer; OFFICER HIGHLANDER; OFFICER QUINN; OFFICER SINGLETON; OFFICER O BRYANT; OFFICER MCHENRY; LIEUTENANT VARGAS; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT; LIEUTENANT CRADDOCK; LIEUTENANT MURPHY; LIEUTENANT GERALD; UNIT MANAGER CAMACHO; ASSOCIATE WARDEN HISCOCKS; COUNSELOR HOPKINS; COUNSEL LASSITER; COUNSELOR DAUGHETY; COUNSEL BROOKS; PA DERRY; PA LECURIE; PA/OFFICER CANADA; NURSE CARTER; OFFICER TORRES; OFFICER KELLER; OFFICER ROCK; OFFICER MCGEE; OFFICER GOOLSBY; OFFICER ANDERSONMIC; OFFICER SMITHWILL; OFFICER NEWSOME; OFFICER SANFORD; OFFICER STATEN; OFFICER ARIAS; OFFICER GLASS; OFFICER KLUX; OFFICER PERRY; OFFICER BULLOCK; OFFICER WOODS; OFFICER FANUEF; MID-ATLANTIC REMEDY COORDINATOR; CENTRAL OFFICE COORDINATOR; ADMINISTRATOR COORDINATOR, at Butner FCI 2; ADMINISTRATOR COORDINATOR, at Talladega FCI; HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; ASSISTANT HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR KILPATRICK; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, in official capacity; GENERAL COUNSEL, in official capacity; DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS, in official capacity; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03218-BO) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Dante Rice seeks to appeal the district court s order granting his motions to amend his complaint, but dismissing the amended complaints except as to one claim. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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). The order Rice seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials Accordingly, we We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3