UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1603
CLARENCE EVERETT JONES, SR., individually and
on behalf of all present and future inmates in
the Dorchester County Jails in Summerville,
South Carolina and in St. George, South
Carolina,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN R. BARNES, Jail Administrator; A. PASTOR,
Captain, Detention Center Commander; S. GREEN,
First Lieutenant and Detention Supervisor; J.
WASHINGTON, First Lieutenant and
Administrative Officer; L. CARMICHAEL,
Lieutenant; C. HEYWARD, Lieutenant; S.
EVERETT, Lieutenant; L. HAYNES, Lieutenant and
Jail Team Commander; DORCHESTER COUNTY; RANDY
SCOTT, Chairman; SKIP ELLIOT; CHRIS MURPHY;
LARRY HARGETT; RICHARD ROSEBROCK, Dorchester
County Council Member; RAY NASH, Dorchester
County Sheriff; TARA RICHARDSON, City
Magistrate of Dorchester County in her
official capacity, Chairman,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KERRY MITCHELL CARN, individually,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-04-2527-2-MBS)
Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: September 16, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Everett Jones, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Albert
Stuckey, Jr., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Everett Jones, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying an extension of the discovery period and
dismissing one defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action.
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 Jones
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 -