Filed: Jan. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6012 DARROL HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS FLOYD, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHNNY DANIELS, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHN DOE #I, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agents, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3004-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6012 DARROL HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS FLOYD, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHNNY DANIELS, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHN DOE #I, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agents, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3004-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6012
DARROL HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DENNIS FLOYD, Special Drug Enforcement Agent;
JOHNNY DANIELS, Special Drug Enforcement
Agent; JOHN DOE #I, Director of the Drug
Enforcement Agents,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-3004-2-18AJ)
Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996
Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrol Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's report and rec-
ommendation in his Bivens* action. 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. § 1291
(1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus-
trial Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order.
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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2