Leo McClam v. Janice Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-01682-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999479842]. Mailed to: Leo McClam. [14-7150]

Appeal: 14-7150

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7150

LEO MCCLAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JANICE THOMAS, RN; DR. REDDY; DR. MCDONALD; DISHA DAVE,
Social Worker; DR. JOSE CHAVEZ; DR. CRISPLAND GRINN; MR.
JAMES, MHS; KIA WILSON; CARLA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-01682-TLW)

Submitted:

November 18, 2014

Decided:

November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leo McClam, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7150

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Leo McClam appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

recommendation

without

prejudice

of
his

the
42

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge

1983

and

(2012)

dismissing

complaint

and

amended complaints.

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).

Because McClam may proceed with

his claims by filing another complaint and providing factual
allegations

specifying

how

the

named

defendants

violated

his

constitutional rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a
final

order

with

respect

to

those

interlocutory or collateral order.

claims

nor

an

appealable

See Domino Sugar Corp. v.

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

Accordingly,

jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

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