Curtis King v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:11-cv-01455-TLW-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998910866]. Mailed to: Curtis King. [12-6648]

Appeal: 12-6648

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6648

CURTIS L. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MAJOR LEWIS; CAPT. MURSIER;
LT. STEVEN; LT. CROUTCH; SGT. MACKY; SGT. WRIT; OFC.
CURHLEY; DR. MCCREE; RN CRAWFORD; RN ANDREW; RN BLACK; MALE
OFFICER YOUNG; CYNTHIA CHERNECKI,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Known and unknown
officials in official and individual capacity security
medical,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:11-cv-01455-TLW-PJG)

Submitted:

July 9, 2012

Decided:

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 7, 2012

Appeal: 12-6648

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Brian E. Sopp, BARNES,
ALFORD,
STORK
&
JOHNSON,
Columbia,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6648

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/07/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration.

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, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

order

nor

The order King
an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss the

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