Jerome McFadden v. S. Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:12-cv-01627-MGL-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999482011]. Mailed to: Jerome McFadden. [14-6962]

Appeal: 14-6962

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6962

JEROME MCFADDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. B. LEWIS, Associate Warden; FRANK MURSIER, Major McCI; L.
CARTELEDGE,
Warden
at
McCI
McCormick
Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(0:12-cv-01627-MGL-PJG)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam.

Jerome McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Brandon Paul Jones, Daniel
Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6962

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerome McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s
text order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of several
nondispositive orders issued by the magistrate judge, including
orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for an
extension of time to complete discovery, and an order granting
in

part

and

denying

in

part

McFadden’s

Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

motion

to

stay

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. 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

The order McFadden
nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we 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