Reaves v. SC Democratic Party

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2388
REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES; FANNIE MELETTE;
MICHAEL SMALL; LAMAR MELETTE; BETTY R. DAVIS;
LEWAN MELETTE; PATRICIA BENNETT; MCROY BARR;
WILLIE JOHNSON; JERRY MASON, and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
DAVID FRAIZER; JOSEPH BENNETT; BOBBY G.
SNOWEN; FRANKLIN M. SNOWEN; KENAKENOA N.
GODBOAT; MCARTHER BRUNSON; ZUYNETRA BRUNSON;
MARSHALL RAINEY; PATRICIA BRUNSON,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; SOUTH
CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION; DILLON COUNTY
ELECTION COMMISSION; MARLBORO COUNTY ELECTION
COMMISSION; MARION COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION;
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; FLORENCE COUNTY
ELECTION COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-04-2047-4)
Submitted: June 23, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Fannie Melette, Michael Small, Lamar
Melette, Betty R. Davis, Lewan Melette, Patricia Bennett, McRoy
Barr, Willie Johnson, Jerry Mason, Appellants Pro Se. William
Norman Nettles, SANDERS & NETTLES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina;
Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John William McIntosh,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Thomas
Parkin C. Hunter, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South
Carolina; Lucas C. Padgett, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Charleston,
South Carolina; Clyde Havird Jones, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth Ramage McMahon, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina; Charlie James
Blake, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the standing order referring
pretrial matters in pro se cases to a magistrate judge for report
and recommendation. 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 appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Nor has the district
court entered a final order in this case. 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 -