Therl Taylor v. Undetermined

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00093-RMG-MGB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767007]. Mailed to: Therl Taylor RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 2039 Ridgeland, SC 29936-0000. [15-7348]

Appeal: 15-7348

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7348

THERL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNDETERMINED,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate
Judge. (2:15-cv-00093-RMG-MGB)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

March 3, 2016

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Therl Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7348

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Therl Taylor, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal
the

district

Department
action.

court’s

of

order

Corrections

authorizing

to

collect

a

the

South

filing

fee

Carolina
in

this

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals no

such order in this case.

See Taylor v. Undetermined, No. 2:15-

cv-00093-RMG-MGB (D.S.C.).

To the extent Taylor seeks to appeal

the district court’s entry of his notice of voluntary dismissal,
we lack jurisdiction.
(6th

Cir.

consents

to

2008)
the

See Dearth v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 413, 415

(“Generally,
dismissal

a
his

of

plaintiff
action

who

requests

cannot

appeal

or
that

dismissal because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment.”).
Finally,

Taylor’s

challenge

to

the

magistrate

judge’s

order

requiring him to bring the case into proper form is moot because
Taylor voluntarily dismissed the complaint.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

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