Williams v. Studivent , 405 F. App'x 803 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-2039
    JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL   STUDIVENT,   Official   Capacity;   TOMMY   STEVENS,
    Individual   and   Official   Capacity;    DEBORAH   LANKFORD,
    Individual    and   Official   Capacity;    SAMUEL   LANKFORD,
    Individual   and  Official   Capacity;   LANKFORD   PROTECTIVE
    SERVICES, Official Capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
    District Judge. (1:09-cv-00414-TDS-WWD)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 22, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.        Michael Studivent,
    Appellee Pro Se; William L. Hill, FRAZIER, FRANKLIN, HILL &
    FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane,
    OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order    adopting     the     magistrate     judge’s      recommendation        and
    dismissing      his   
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
       (2006)    complaint       against
    Defendants      Samuel     Lankford,     Deborah     Lankford,    and     Lankford
    Protective Services.         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).            Because the district court has not
    adjudicated all of Williams’s claims against all the Defendants,
    the order Williams 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2039

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 803

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024