Ben Smith v. Joseph Coffy
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cv-00201-RMG-BM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998595419]. Mailed to: Ben Smith. [10-2376]
Appeal: 10-2376
Document: 9
Date Filed: 05/23/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2376
BEN HOWARD SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOB ATKINSON; LINDA G. WALTERS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PERCY B. HARVIN; L. KEITH JOSEY, JR.; RONNIE STEWART, all
in their individual and official capacity; JOSEPH K. COFFY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RMG-BM)
Submitted:
May 19, 2011
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Decided:
Judge,
and
AGEE
and
May 23, 2011
KEENAN,
Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly M. Jolley, MCNAIR LAW
FIRM, PA, Hilton Head, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Appeal: 10-2376
Document: 9
Date Filed: 05/23/2011
Page: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 10-2376
Document: 9
Date Filed: 05/23/2011
Page: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ben Howard Smith appeals the district court’s order
dismissing
two
court
exercise
may
defendants
in
his
jurisdiction
civil
only
rights
over
action.
final
This
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 Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
the
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?