UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6859
DAVID FARRELL SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER WELLS, Assistant County Solicitor; POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; LARRY
POWERS; STAFF OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,
and or unknown name supervisor and employees; DEPUTY SHERIFF
HOPKINS, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy
Sheriff for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY, for
Spartanburg County in his individual and official capacity
as Deputy for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY 1,
individually and in his official capacity as Deputy for
Cherokee County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY 2, in his
individual and official capacity as Deputy for Cherokee
County; CHEROKEE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of South Carolina; CLAY T. ALLEN, in his individual
and official capacity as Public Defender of the political
subdivision of Spartanburg County, South Carolina; HAROLD W.
GOWDY, III, in his individual and official capacity as
Solicitor for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY
LIEUTENANT, of Cherokee County in his individual and
official capacity as Supervisor for Cherokee County; UNKNOWN
ON SCENE DEPUTY SERGEANT, of Cherokee County in his
individual and official capacity as Deputy for Cherokee
County,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-7676
DAVID FARRELL SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER WELLS, Assistant County Solicitor; POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; LARRY
POWERS; STAFF OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,
and or unknown name supervisor and employees; DEPUTY SHERIFF
HOPKINS, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy
Sheriff for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY, for
Spartanburg County in his individual and official capacity
as Deputy for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY 1,
individually and in his official capacity as Deputy for
Cherokee County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY 2, in his
individual and official capacity as Deputy for Cherokee
County; CHEROKEE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of South Carolina; CLAY T. ALLEN, in his individual
and official capacity as Public Defender of the political
subdivision of Spartanburg County, South Carolina; HAROLD W.
GOWDY, III, in his individual and official capacity as
Solicitor for Spartanburg County; UNKNOWN ON SCENE DEPUTY
LIEUTENANT, of Cherokee County in his individual and
official capacity as Supervisor for Cherokee County; UNKNOWN
ON SCENE DEPUTY SERGEANT, of Cherokee County in his
individual and official capacity as Deputy for Cherokee
County,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd; Richard M.
Gergel, District Judges. (6:09-cv-02551-HFF; 6:09-cv-02551-RMG)
Submitted: April 26, 2011 Decided: May 12, 2011
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
2
No. 10-6859 dismissed; No. 10-7676 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin,
HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
In No. 10-6859, David Farrell Sullivan appeals the
district court’s orders denying his motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) in his action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). 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). Because the district court’s order
denying Sullivan’s Rule 56(f) motion was neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss
the appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 10-7676, Sullivan appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Appellees. Our review of the
record reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that
order for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v.
Wells, No. 6:09-cv-02551-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2010).
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.
No. 10-6859 DISMISSED
No. 10-7676 AFFIRMED
4