Ronald L. Legg v. Southern Health Partner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999000636-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00481-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999027435]. Mailed to: Ronald L. Legg. [12-7979]

Appeal: 12-7979

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7979

RONALD L. LEGG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, Jodi Harrison,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge.
(1:12-cv-00481-MGL)

Submitted:

January 17, 2013

Decided: January 23, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald L. Legg, Appellant Pro Se.
Elliott T. Halio, HALIO &
HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7979

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ronald L. Legg seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
report

recommending

that

the

district

court

grant

Defendant

Southern Health Partners’ motion for summary judgment on his 42
U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2006)

complaint.

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).

Because it lacks both

designation by the district court and consent of the parties, 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
not a final, appealable decision.
F.3d

1217,

1219

(10th

Cir.

appealable to this court.
for

transcripts

at

the

See Haney v. Addison, 175

1999).

Nor

is

it

otherwise

Accordingly, we deny Legg’s motion

Government’s

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

expense

and

dismiss

the

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