Richardson v. Thomas
Richardson v. Thomas
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7099
CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PAULA THOMAS, Judge; RODNEY PEEPLES, Judge; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General; JIM HODGES, Governor; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; GARY MAYNARD, Director; HARRY MCDOWELL, Magistrate; GREGORY HEMBRE, Solicitor; GEORGE DEBUSK, Assistant Solicitor; JAMES HARRIS, Loris Police Department; OFFICER PAGE, Loris Police Department; THOMAS W. FLOYD; JACK FLOM; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LORIS, SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE DEPARTMENT; HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; MARSHALL RUSSELL, Chief, Loris Police Department; MAYOR, Loris, South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-2553-1)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Dale Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000), claim against all but
two 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 Richardson 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished