Jackson v. Cross

60 F.3d 822, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24877, 1995 WL 404865

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 1995
• Docket: 94-7261
• Status: Published

Opinion

60 F.3d 822
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ronald Floyd JACKSON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Paul E. CROSS, in his personal and individual capacity as a
Federal Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms Division, and in his official capacity as a
supervising agent and final policy-maker in the field,
Defendant--Appellee,
and
Charles E. FOLEY, in his personal and individual capacity as
Sheriff, and in his official capacity as the final
policy-maker of all Marlboro County Law Enforcement; Robert
Leonard Jenkins, in his personal and individual capacity as
an employee of Buddy's Trucker Motel and private citizen
acting under and with color of state and federal law; Buddy
Tiller, in his personal and individual capacity as a local
business-owner and private citizen acting with color of
state and federal law; County of Marlboro Board of
Commissioners, in their individual and personal capacities,
and in their official capacities as the supervisors of
County Custom and Policy, Defendants.

No. 94-7261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 22, 1995.
Decided July 10, 1995.

Ronald Floyd Jackson, appellant pro se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC; Mark Wilson Buyck, Jr., L. Hunter Limbaugh, Willcox, Mcleod, Buyck, Baker & Williams, P.A., Florence, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Cross. 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 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.

DISMISSED