Filed: Dec. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7334 JAMES ERVIN MCGEE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT; COLIE RUSHTON; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-23221-8-MBS) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7334 JAMES ERVIN MCGEE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT; COLIE RUSHTON; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-23221-8-MBS) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7334
JAMES ERVIN MCGEE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JONATHAN E. OZMINT; COLIE RUSHTON; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-04-23221-8-MBS)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Ervin McGee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James E. McGee, Jr. seeks to appeal the report and
recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, issued on August 12, 2005.
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 order McGee
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. 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
- 2 -