Larry Williams v. Warden Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-03321-MBS-JRM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999029911]. Mailed to: Williams. [12-7930]

Appeal: 12-7930

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7930

LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. WARDEN BODISON; WARDEN W. THOMPSON; CAPTAIN BRITEHART;
GOODWIN GEORGE; LIEUTENANT D. MAGHEE; SERGEANT JOHNSON;
WARDEN HUNTER; SERGEANT WILSON; MR. JON OZMINT; COMMISSARY
STAFF MAHAFFEX; SERGEANT SANFORD; NFN JEFFERSON, Commissary
Staff,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (3:09-cv-03321-MBS-JRM)

Submitted:

January 22, 2013

Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7930

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Larry
complaint
court’s

in

Williams

the

order

filed

district

dismissing

a

court.
his

42
He

action

U.S.C.

§

appeals
without

1983
the

(2006)
district

prejudice

for

failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to provide
the court with addresses for the defendants.

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, 545-47 (1949).

Because the

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by
the filing of a complaint that satisfies the requirements of the
district court, we conclude that the district court’s order is
neither

a

final

collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2