Unula Abebe v. SC Dept of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-03111-MBS-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998443151] [10-7114]

Unula Abebe v. SC Dept of Correction

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7114 Document: 15

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7114 UNULA BOO SHAWN ABEBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SC DEPT OF CORRECTIONS; OFFICER GOFFREY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:09-cv-03111-MBS-PJG) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unula Boo Shawn Abebe, Appellant Pro Se. John Betts McCutcheon, Jr., Lisa Arlene Thomas, THOMPSON & HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7114 Document: 15

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Unula Abebe seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections, but rejecting the recommendation and granting Abebe leave to file his "Second Party Complaint" and recommitting consideration. his case to the magistrate judge for further

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, 54546 (1949). order nor The order Abebe seeks to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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