Richardson v. Thomas

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. Thomas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2002

Docket02-7099

StatusUnpublished

This text of Richardson v. Thomas (Richardson v. Thomas) 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

Richardson v. Thomas, (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7099

CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAULA THOMAS, Judge; RODNEY PEEPLES, Judge; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General; JIM HODGES, Governor; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; GARY MAYNARD, Director; HARRY MCDOWELL, Magistrate; GREGORY HEMBRE, Solicitor; GEORGE DEBUSK, Assistant Solicitor; JAMES HARRIS, Loris Police Department; OFFICER PAGE, Loris Police Department; THOMAS W. FLOYD; JACK FLOM; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LORIS, SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE DEPARTMENT; HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; MARSHALL RUSSELL, Chief, Loris Police Department; MAYOR, Loris, South Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-2553-1)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Dale Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), claim against all but

two Defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order Richardson seeks 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

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