Tinsley v. Singleton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 11, 2011
• Docket: 10-7309
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7309

JAMES D. TINSLEY, a/k/a James D. Tinsley, II, a/k/a Jimmy Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JAMES SINGLETON, Sheriff, Oconee County; GREG REED, Detective Oconee County; DAVID SMITH, Detective Oconee County; STEVE PRUITT, Major, Oconee County Detention Center; PHYLLIS LOMBARD, Oconee County Administrator; OCONEE COUNTY; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-25; SCOTT ARNOLD, Investigator, OCSO; JERRY MOSS, Sgt., OSCO; MARK LYLES, Sgt., OCSO; MIKE MCGOWAN, OSCO; GENTRY HAWK, Sgt., OCSO,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00532-SB)

Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James D. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James D. Tinsley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting in part and denying in part his motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order granting

Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006) claims. 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 Tinsley seeks to appeal is neither a final

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