Filed: Oct. 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6520 ROBERT COKER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY POWERS; SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER GREER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:09-cv-03332-HFF-TER) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6520 ROBERT COKER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY POWERS; SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER GREER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:09-cv-03332-HFF-TER) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6520
ROBERT COKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LARRY POWERS; SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER;
OFFICER GREER,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(4:09-cv-03332-HFF-TER)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Coker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Coker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Coker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against one
of the Defendants. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Coker seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction and deny Coker’s motion to appoint counsel. 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