U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2010

Olszowy v. Schmutz

Olszowy v. Schmutz
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 25, 2010

Olszowy v. Schmutz

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8064

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. JOSEPH STEPHEN SCHMUTZ; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE; SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J. WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O’CONNELL; NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN; SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN CHURCH, Solicitor, Defendants – Appellees, and WAYNE DEWITT, Sheriff, Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, Major, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-PMD-BM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se.

Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Christopher Leonard Olszowy and Anna Olszowy seek to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the Olszowys’ claims against all but two Defendants. 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 the Olszowys’ seek 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.