Tennant v. Georgetown County ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1832
    JAMES M. TENNANT; CHARLES R. RICHARDS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    HORRY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, a
    telephone    and     cable    company;     HTC
    COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, a communications
    company; SOUTHEASTERN PUBLISHING COMPANY,
    INCORPORATED, owner and publisher of the
    Coastal Observer,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    GEORGETOWN COUNTY, a division of the State of
    South Carolina; THOMAS EDWARDS, JR., in his
    individual and official capacity as County
    Administrator for Georgetown County; JACK M.
    SCOVILLE, JR., in his individual and official
    capacity as County Attorney for Georgetown
    County; EDSEL HEMINGWAY; TOM SWATZEL; JOHNNY
    MORANT; DAVID HOOD; HELEN RUDOLPH; and THOMAS
    EARL DRAYTON, in their individual and official
    capacities as members of the County Council of
    Georgetown County; RONALD CHARLTON, in his
    individual and official capacity as member of
    the County Council of Georgetown County and
    his capacity as an owner and officer of
    Southern Cable Communications, Inc., and
    Southern Coastal Cable, L.L.C.; SOUTHERN CABLE
    COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, a cable company;
    SOUTHERN COASTAL CABLE LLC, a cable company;
    CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a municipal entity; L BOYD
    JOHNSON, in his individual and official
    capacity as City Administrator for the City of
    Georgetown; GEORGETOWN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
    a school district; RANDY DOZIER, in his
    individual and official capacity as Deputy
    Superintendent of the Georgetown County School
    District; YVONNE CHANDLER, each in her
    individual and official capacity as an
    official of the Georgetown County School
    District; SCOTT EVERITT, an employee of Horry
    Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; BILLY HUGHES, an
    employee of Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc.;
    AAC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FL-VA, LLC, a cable
    company; DOUG JONES, an employee of AAC Cable
    Communications FL-VA, LLC, a cable company;
    TIME WARNER CABLE, a cable company; MARY ANNE
    JACOBS, an official of Time Warner Cable; BUD
    TIBSHRANY, an official of Time Warner Cable;
    WAYNE ELLIS, senior pastor for Screven Baptist
    Church; SCREVEN BAPTIST CHURCH, a church
    located in Georgetown, S.C.,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (2:04-cv-00093-CWH)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2007             Decided:   March 6, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James M. Tennant and Charles R. Richards, Appellants Pro Se.
    Dominic Allen Starr, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Myrtle
    Beach, South Carolina; Jerry Jay Bender, BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    James M. Tennant and Charles R. Richards (“Appellants”)
    seek to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
    judge’s report and recommendation, granting Southeastern Publishing
    Company, Inc., summary judgment and dismissing it from Appellants’
    civil action. 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
    , 545-47 (1949).
    The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order. In the absence of an
    “express determination” by the district court that there is no just
    reason   for   delayed   appellate    review   of   the   award   of   summary
    judgment in Southeastern’s favor, review of the district court’s
    order must await the disposition of all claims against all parties.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).    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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1832

Filed Date: 3/6/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021