Terrell McCoy v. David McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:12-cv-00474-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999328220]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-7867]

Appeal: 13-7867

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7867

TERRELL MCCOY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN DAVID MICHAEL MCCALL; LIEUTENANT MADDEN; NURSE
ALLISON YOUNG; SERGEANT LINDSAY; LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON;
MIRIAM SNYDER; MS. DAVIS; LIEUTENANT DANIEL HAROUFF,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(9:12-cv-00474-MGL)

Submitted:

March 28, 2014

Decided:

April 2, 2014

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrell McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7867

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Terrell

McCoy

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in
part and granting summary judgment to Defendants on all claims
except the excessive force claim in this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006).

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen

v.

545-46 (1949).

Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541,

The order McCoy seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

While McCoy appealed the court’s denial of his request for
a preliminary injunction, and such order is immediately
appealable, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); Dewhurst v.
Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011), he
failed to raise that issue in his informal brief. Accordingly,
that claim is not before us. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

2