Olszowy v. Schmutz

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8064

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

JOSEPH STEPHEN SCHMUTZ; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE; SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J. WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O’CONNELL; NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN; SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN CHURCH, Solicitor,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WAYNE DEWITT, Sheriff, Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, Major,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-PMD-BM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Christopher Leonard Olszowy and Anna Olszowy seek to

appeal the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting

in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the

Olszowys’ claims against all but two Defendants. 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, 545-46 (1949). The

order the Olszowys’ seek to appeal is neither a final order nor

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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