James Tinsley II v. James Singleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:08-cv-00532-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mail recipients: A. St. Amand, E. Roumel, J. Tinsley [998565289].. [10-7309]--[Edited 04/11/2011 by CT]

Case: 10-7309

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7309

JAMES D. TINSLEY, a/k/a James D. Tinsley, II, a/k/a Jimmy
Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES
SINGLETON,
Sheriff,
Oconee
County;
GREG
REED,
Detective Oconee County; DAVID SMITH, Detective Oconee
County; STEVE PRUITT, Major, Oconee County Detention Center;
PHYLLIS LOMBARD, Oconee County Administrator; OCONEE COUNTY;
JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-25; SCOTT ARNOLD, Investigator, OCSO;
JERRY MOSS, Sgt., OSCO; MARK LYLES, Sgt., OCSO; MIKE
MCGOWAN, OSCO; GENTRY HAWK, Sgt., OCSO,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00532-SB)

Submitted:

March 30, 2011

Decided:

April 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James D. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7309

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
James D. Tinsley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

granting

reconsideration
Defendants’

in

part

of

summary

(2006) claims.

and

the

denying

district

judgment

motion

in

part

court’s
on

his

his

motion

order
42

for

granting

U.S.C.

§ 1983

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).
nor

an

The order Tinsley seeks to appeal is neither a final
appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2