Jackson v. Cannon , 230 F. App'x 303 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6330
    LEROY JACKSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AL CANNON, Sheriff; MITCH LUCAS, Chief;
    OFFICER WRIGHT; OFFICER WILLIAMS; CHARLESTON
    COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; CORPORAL GOODYEAR;
    OFFICER RIVERS; OFFICER SINGLETARY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:06-cv-03022-GRA)
    Submitted: June 15, 2007                    Decided:   June 21, 2007
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leroy Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.    Bernard Eugene Ferrara, Jr.,
    Joseph Dawson, III, CHARLESTON COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, North
    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leroy Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
    dismissing his complaint without prejudice and without issuance of
    service of process as to defendants Charleston County Detention
    Center,   Cannon,     Wright,     Lucas,   Williams,    and   Goodyear.   The
    complaint was also ordered to be served as to two remaining
    defendants.   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 Jackson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is not a
    final order as to all claims against all defendants.            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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6330

Citation Numbers: 230 F. App'x 303

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 6/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023