Filed: May 08, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8169 ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity; ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cv-02775-HFF-WMC) Submitted: April 21, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 Before T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8169 ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity; ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cv-02775-HFF-WMC) Submitted: April 21, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 Before TR..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8169
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity;
ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in
his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cv-02775-HFF-WMC)
Submitted: April 21, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvis Joseph Amarame, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvis Joseph Amarame seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Amarame’s complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final 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 (1949). The order Amarame 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2