46 F3d 1126 Redmond Pressley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Compliance Office American Telephone & Telegraph Company

46 F.3d 1126

David R. REDMOND, Plaintiff Appellant,
and
Terry K. PRESSLEY; Gary Stegall; Paul Mincey; Kamathene
Adonia Cooper; Stacy L. Ford; Charles Underwood; Timothy
Wellington; Jerry N. Kelleher; Carlos Elliott; Gregory T.
Bennett; William Hall; Roy Owens; John Brown, Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMPLIANCE OFFICE
at Headquarters, Defendant Appellee,
and
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 94-6774.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 13, 1994.
Decided Jan. 12, 1995.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1089-3-17AK)

David R. Redmond, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Advertisement
view counter
1

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing one Defendant in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED