Robert Frost, Jr. v. SC Dep't of Corrections ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7482
    ROBERT FROST, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DIRECTOR BILL
    BYARS, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LEVERN
    COHEN,   Warden  Ridgeland   Correctional  Institution;  MS.
    MONTOUTH,    Inmate    Grievance    Coordinator,   Ridgeland
    Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN BEST, in their individual
    and official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg.       Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
    District Judge. (5:11-cv-02520-JFA-KDW)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 27, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Frost, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Matthew David Cavender,
    Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, P.A.,
    Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert     Frost,    Jr.,       seeks      to    appeal     the       district
    court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
    denying   without       prejudice       the   Defendants’        motion       for    summary
    judgment in Frost’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006) complaint.                                  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 Frost 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    this    court    and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7482

Filed Date: 12/27/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014