Henry Martin, Jr. v. William Byar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-03516-TMC-KFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999514119]. Mailed to: Henry Martin, Jr. [14-7454]

Appeal: 14-7454

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7454

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM R. BYARS; JOHN R. PATE; ARTHUR A. JORDAN; MCKENNDLY
NEWTON; ROBERT E. WARD; JON OZMINT; DENNIS PATTERSON;
DANIEL MURPHY; DAVID M. TATARSKY; LT. J. CARUJO; LT. J.
CARTER; ROBERT ORR; LT. JAMES RUMP; CAPTAIN E. J. MILLER;
DR. THOMAS BYNSE; LT. VARLEASE BLACK; CPL L. JENKINS; CPT
MYECHA MILEY; M. HUDSON; S. SINGLATON, DHO; CPL. T.
SIMPSON; MR. MCQUEEN; P. SMITH; A. HOLLMAN; HELEN FREEMAN;
THOMAS SCOTT; CPT. E. JAMES; TANYA A. GEE; V. CLAIRE ALLEN;
JOHN C. FEW; WAYNE C. MCCABE; JILL BEATTIE; JEANNETTE MACK;
FRANCINE BAUCHMAN; PATTY BRITT POSEY; JAMES S. SLIGH, JR.;
DR. ROWLAND; GREGORY S. LINE; CHARLOTTE SMITH; ELLEN
GOODWIN; RUSSELL RUSH; JIM CROSBY; SUSAN BARDEN; VIRGINIA
CROCKER; PAM SMITH; LAKETA DIKA; DEBORAH B. DURDEN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cv-03516-TMC-KFM)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-7454

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Sharp,
GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7454

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Henry W. Martin, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s
judge

order
and

Defendant

adopting

dismissing
without

the

recommendation

Martin’s

claims

prejudice.

of

the

magistrate

against

all

but

court

may

exercise

This

one

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).
to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

order

The order Martin seeks
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

3