Filed: Mar. 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8205 OTIS FAUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN TAYLOR; DIRECTOR OZMINT; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BURTON; MAJOR FELDER; LIEUTENANT MCNEIL; MARY MONTOUTH, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:07-cv-00058-RBH-MCIV) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8205 OTIS FAUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN TAYLOR; DIRECTOR OZMINT; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BURTON; MAJOR FELDER; LIEUTENANT MCNEIL; MARY MONTOUTH, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:07-cv-00058-RBH-MCIV) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MIC..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8205
OTIS FAUST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TAYLOR; DIRECTOR OZMINT; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BURTON;
MAJOR FELDER; LIEUTENANT MCNEIL; MARY MONTOUTH, Inmate
Grievance Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:07-cv-00058-RBH-MCIV)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Otis Faust, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & PAYNE
LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Otis Faust seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying without prejudice defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and recommitting the action to the magistrate judge for
further proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Faust 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