77 F3d 467 Battle v. Reynolds S III

77 F.3d 467

Frankie L. BATTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Vivian REYNOLDS, individually and in her official capacity
as jailhouse chief supervisor officer of Marion County
jailhouse in the city of Marion County within the state of
South Carolina; Howard Gelespy; Kenny Davis; Thomas S.
Payne, III; Doctor Derwell; Doctor Beck; Doctor Blanton;
Samuel J. Friedman; J. Nurse; Marion County, individually
and in their official capacity as a municipal corporation
organized under and pursuant to the laws of the state of
South Carolina; Marion County, Jailhouse Supervisors in
offices or commissioner, individually and in their official
capacity as the local governing entity policy maker of South
Carolina and in their supervisory roles for the county of
Marion, South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6772.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 1996.
Decided Feb. 21, 1996.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frankie L. Battle, Appellant Pro Se. L. Hunter Limbaugh, WILLCOX, McLEOD, BUYCK, BAKER & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.


view counter

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his claim of negligence and allowing Appellant to amend his complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 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. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.


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.