Smith v. Ray

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Ray

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2004

Docket04-6135

StatusUnpublished

This text of Smith v. Ray (Smith v. Ray) 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

Smith v. Ray, (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6135

LEE ROY SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICKEY E. RAY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; J. D. CASTILLO, Health Services Administrator, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; JOSE A. SERANNO, M.D. and Clinical Director of Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; JUAN F. CARMONA, JR., Lieutenant, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; LISA MORGAN-JOHNSON, Counselor, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; JACK FOX, Unit Manager, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield; DOUGLAS HOLFORD, Contracted Orthopedic Specialist, Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-02-2627-8-18AJ)

Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: June 30, 2004

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Roy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; David Austin Brown, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Lee Roy Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his claims against all defendants except one. 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 Smith 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

- 3 -

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