Dennis Temple v. Owen McClelland LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-00652-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999720979]. Mailed to: Dennis Temple. [15-7254]

Appeal: 15-7254

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7254

DENNIS TEMPLE, a/k/a Dennis Maurice Temple,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OWEN MCCLELLAND LLC; ALL SAFE STORAGE CO.; OWE M. ROBERTS,
IV, in his individual capacity; HELEN HART PILLANS ROBERTS,
in her individual capacity; KIMBERLY EDWARDS CHEWNING,
Manager, in her individual capacity; JAMES SINGLETON,
Sheriff, in his individual capacity; GREG REED, Captain, in
his individual capacity; SCOTT ARNOLD, Sergeant, in his
individual capacity; JERRY MOSS, Sergeant, in his individual
capacity; CHRISSY T. ADAMS, Solicitor, in her individual
capacity; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR LINDSEY S. SIMMONS, in her
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:15-cv-00652-JFA)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

December 18, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-7254

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Dennis Temple, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7254

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dennis Temple seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

dismissing his civil action without prejudice.

judge

and

This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012),

and

28 U.S.C.

certain

§ 1292

Beneficial

Indus.

interlocutory

(2012);
Loan

Fed.

and

collateral

R.

P.

337

Corp.,

Civ.
U.S.

54(b);

541,

545

orders.
Cohen

47

v.

(1949).

Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Temple seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

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

3