Bell v. Myers

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 6, 2009
Docket09-6752
StatusUnpublished

This text of Bell v. Myers (Bell v. Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. Myers, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6752

ALEXANDER BELL, a/k/a Sulyaman Al Islam Salaam,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MAJOR MYERS; KATHRYN HARREL, Assistant Director; KENNY BROWN, Officer; OFFICER CHAPPEL,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ALVIN S. GLENN DETENTION CENTER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (9:09-cv-00607-CMC-BM)

Submitted: August 27, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Alexander Bell seeks to appeal the district court

order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center from his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Bell seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’ motion

to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Bell’s

motion for injunctive relief. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bell v. Myers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-myers-ca4-2009.