Demetrius Green v. Ms. Caper

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to extend filing time as moot [1000091946-2] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00126-DCN-JDA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000107659]. Mailed to: Demetrius L. Green EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION RHU #109 610 Highway 9 West Bennettsville, SC 29512-5202, John Horton Guerry. [17-6502]

Appeal: 17-6502

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6502

DEMETRIUS L. GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. CAPERS, Jail Administrator; MR. BROOKS, Jail Guard; MS. ELMORE, Jail
Guard,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00126-DCN-JDA)

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Parsons Kelley, RICHARDSON
PLOWDEN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6502

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Demetrius L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part and
rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting in part and denying in
part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and remanding the matter to the
magistrate judge for further discovery. 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). The order Green seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction and deny as moot Green’s motion for extension of time to file an informal
reply brief. 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