Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

93-6559 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6559 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 05, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 2 F.3d 1150 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lucious Dwight SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Parker EVATT, Commissioner, SCDC; William C. Wallace, Warden, CCI, SCDC; Robert L. Smith, Sergeant, CCI, SCDC; Adraine Jackson, C/O, CCI, SCDC; John R. Maxey, Investigator, CCI, SCDC, D
More

2 F.3d 1150

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lucious Dwight SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, SCDC; William C. Wallace,
Warden, CCI, SCDC; Robert L. Smith, Sergeant, CCI, SCDC;
Adraine Jackson, C/O, CCI, SCDC; John R. Maxey,
Investigator, CCI, SCDC, Defendants-Appellees,
and
H. C. SALTER, Supervisor, Chief Supervisor, West Columbia
Police Department, West Columbia, SC; Oscar McDowell, Chief
Supervisor; Darlington County Commissioner, Defendants.

No. 93-6559.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 16, 1993.
Decided: August 5, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-91-3483-4-3-BC)

Lucious Dwight Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Mark Wilson Buyck, Jr., L. Hunter Limbaugh, Gordon Badger Baker, Jr., Willcox, McLeod, Buyck, Baker & Williams, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Lucious Dwight Smith appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) as against some, but not all, of the Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988); and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer