Filed: May 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6058 WILLIE HINES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID D. SMITH; KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE, Plaintiffs, versus JON E. OZMINT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3580-6-13AK; CA-03-3334-6-13AK; CA-03-3579-6-13AK) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6058 WILLIE HINES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID D. SMITH; KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE, Plaintiffs, versus JON E. OZMINT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3580-6-13AK; CA-03-3334-6-13AK; CA-03-3579-6-13AK) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6058
WILLIE HINES, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DAVID D. SMITH; KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JON E. OZMINT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-3580-6-13AK; CA-03-3334-6-13AK; CA-03-3579-6-13AK)
Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Hines, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Willie Hines, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order determining that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action, which he
filed with three other inmates, was not appropriate for class
certification and severing the action into four separate lawsuits.
He also seeks to appeal a subsequent scheduling order. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders Hines seeks to appeal
are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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
- 3 -