Filed: May 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2376 BEN HOWARD SMITH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BOB ATKINSON; LINDA G. WALTERS, Defendants – Appellees, and PERCY B. HARVIN; L. KEITH JOSEY, JR.; RONNIE STEWART, all in their individual and official capacity; JOSEPH K. COFFY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RMG-BM) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2376 BEN HOWARD SMITH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BOB ATKINSON; LINDA G. WALTERS, Defendants – Appellees, and PERCY B. HARVIN; L. KEITH JOSEY, JR.; RONNIE STEWART, all in their individual and official capacity; JOSEPH K. COFFY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RMG-BM) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2376
BEN HOWARD SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOB ATKINSON; LINDA G. WALTERS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PERCY B. HARVIN; L. KEITH JOSEY, JR.; RONNIE STEWART, all
in their individual and official capacity; JOSEPH K. COFFY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RMG-BM)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly M. Jolley, MCNAIR LAW
FIRM, PA, Hilton Head, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ben Howard Smith appeals the district court’s order
dismissing two defendants in his civil rights action. 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 Smith 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
3