Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6395 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GREGORY WILLIAM SEIGLER, Defendant – Appellee, and LT. MARK HOWARD, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-01156-MBS-KDW) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6395 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GREGORY WILLIAM SEIGLER, Defendant – Appellee, and LT. MARK HOWARD, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-01156-MBS-KDW) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6395
STEVEN LOUIS BARNES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GREGORY WILLIAM SEIGLER,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
LT. MARK HOWARD,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (5:11-cv-01156-MBS-KDW)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Desa Ann Rice Ballard,
Harvey MacClure Watson, III, DESA BALLARD, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Louis Barnes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his claims against the Appellee Gregory
William Seigler without prejudice. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Barnes seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Barnes’ motion to amend
his notice of appeal. 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