Nathaniel Singleton v. Mr. Nelson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-02985-RBH-SVH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999340973]. Mailed to: Nathaniel Singleton. [14-6103]

Appeal: 14-6103

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6103

NATHANIEL SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FOOD SERVICE OFFICER MR. NELSON; FOOD SERVICE MR. TAYLOR;
FOOD SERVICE MR. CRAZE; FOOD SERVICE MS. JOHNSON; FOOD
SERVICE MS. VENTON; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE BROWN;
ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE ARGLINE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-02985-RBH-SVH)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6103

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel

Singleton

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss some, but not all, of Singleton’s claims asserted under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).

This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over

28

final

orders,

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. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337

U.S.

541,

545-46

(1949).

The

order

Singleton

seeks

to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order.

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