Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1572 DON BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY CAMARADO; JOSEPH BALDI; JACK COLBURNE, Defendants - Appellees, and E.U. WURLITZER MUSIC AND SOUND, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3062-3-17-BD) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismisse
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1572 DON BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY CAMARADO; JOSEPH BALDI; JACK COLBURNE, Defendants - Appellees, and E.U. WURLITZER MUSIC AND SOUND, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3062-3-17-BD) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1572
DON BOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANTHONY CAMARADO; JOSEPH BALDI; JACK COLBURNE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
E.U. WURLITZER MUSIC AND SOUND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-3062-3-17-BD)
Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Catharine Garbee Griffin, BAKER,
BARWICK, RAVENEL & BENDER, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Don Boyd appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his
appeal against the individual defendants for failure to effectuate
proper service. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(1994); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949).
The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Absent certification under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), we therefore lack jurisdiction. Accord-
ingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2