George Evans v. Guilford County Detention, No. 14-2174 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2174 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; B. J. BARNES; SGT. LANIER; OFFICER MANGUM; GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00499-NCT-JEP) Submitted: August 18, 2015 Decided: September 18, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Livingston Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; John Mark Payne, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Reynold Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, The order Evans seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * According to the district court’s docket sheet, Evans has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. However, the district court has not yet ruled on the ojections or issued a final order. 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.