Dixon v. Horry County SC ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7190
DAVID E. DIXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; JOHN T. HENRY,
Horry County Sheriff; RALPH VAUGHT, Adminis-
trator, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; LIEU-
TENANT BOYD, J. Reuben Long Supervisory Offi-
cer; KENNETH I. GRATE, Lieutenant, J. Reuben
Long Detention Center Supervisory Officer;
RANDY GERALD, Sergeant, J. Reuben Long Deten-
tion Officer; CORPORAL MOSES, J. Reuben Long
Detention Center Officer; NURSE STACKHOUSE,
J. Reuben Long Detention Center; VICKIE LEWIS,
Nurse, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; MRS.
GRISSETT, Nurse, J. Reuben Long Detention
Center; ANN ANDERSON, J. Reuben Long Detention
Center; DOUGLAS FREEMAN, Horry County
Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-1463-3BD)
Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David E. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & SENN,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the
magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Appellant's motion for
summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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