Stephen Nivens v. Secretary of the DPSCS, No. 23-7225 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7225 STEPHEN NIVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; BALTIMORE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; LIEUTENANT BLEVINS, Baltimore County Detention Center Correctional Dietary Officer; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; WILLIAM BOHRER, Warden; DIRECTOR O’NEIL, Baltimore County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees, and TEHUM CARE SERVICES, INC., f/k/a Corizon Health, Inc.; YESCARE; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; UNNAMED INFECTION CONTROL LPN; ADAORA N. ODENZE, Director of Nursing Services; JOSEPH A. EZEIT, Director of Inmate Health Care Administration; SHARON L. BAUCOM, M.D., Chief Medical Director; JENNIFER MELLOTT, RN; BECKY BARNHART, RN, Assistant Director of Nursing, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-02298-ELH) Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Nivens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Nivens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not all, of the claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 Nivens 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 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 3

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.