Leonard Haley v. Holly Hoover, No. 23-7119 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7119 LEONARD LEE HALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOLLY HOOVER; DR. A. GETACHEW, Corizon Statewide Director; DR. HOWARD COOK; NURSE LLEWELLYN, Corizon NBCI Medical Inst. Nurse; D.O.C. (DPSCS) COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., former Warden, NBCI (DPSCS); JEFF NINES, Warden, NBCI (DPSCS); DR. ASHOK KRISHNASWAMY, Orthopedic Surgeon; CORIZON NBCI MEDICAL DEPT., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01191-TDC) Submitted: March 12, 2024 Decided: March 15, 2024 Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Lee Haley, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland; Gregory Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonard Lee Haley seeks to appeal the district court’s order partially dismissing Haley’s complaint for failure to state a claim. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all the claims raised in the complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, although the district court granted six of the named defendants’ motions to dismiss, it did not rule on Haley’s claims against Corizon Health, Inc., Dr. Howard Cook, and Dr. Ashok Krishnaswamy, and it did not enter a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, the order Haley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore 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

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.