Filed: Sep. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7131 DARRYL LAMONT HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEVIN MARSEE, Lieutenant for Anderson County Police Department; PHILLIP WEST, Investigator for Anderson County Police Department, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-886-0-20BD) Submitted: September 19, 2002 D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7131 DARRYL LAMONT HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEVIN MARSEE, Lieutenant for Anderson County Police Department; PHILLIP WEST, Investigator for Anderson County Police Department, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-886-0-20BD) Submitted: September 19, 2002 De..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7131
DARRYL LAMONT HUNTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KEVIN MARSEE, Lieutenant for Anderson County
Police Department; PHILLIP WEST, Investigator
for Anderson County Police Department, in
their individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-886-0-20BD)
Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 30, 2002
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl Lamont Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Lamont Hunter appeals the district court’s order
accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Hunter’s
motions for default judgment and to have the U.S. Marshal serve his
summons and complaint. 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
(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); 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.
We therefore 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
2