Smith v. Ray ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6135
    LEE ROY SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICKEY E. RAY, Warden, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; J. D. CASTILLO, Health
    Services Administrator, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JOSE A. SERANNO, M.D.
    and Clinical Director of Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JUAN F. CARMONA, JR.,
    Lieutenant, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; LISA MORGAN-JOHNSON,
    Counselor, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JACK FOX, Unit
    Manager, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; DOUGLAS HOLFORD,
    Contracted Orthopedic Specialist, Federal
    Correctional Institution-Edgefield,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-02-2627-8-18AJ)
    Submitted:   June 24, 2004                 Decided:   June 30, 2004
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lee Roy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; David Austin
    Brown, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Lee Roy Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his claims against all defendants except one.       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 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6135

Filed Date: 6/30/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014