UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7897
TYRONE LAMAR ROBERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden Lee Corrections Institution;
MAJOR JAMES DEAN; LIEUTENANT A. DAVIS; LIEUTENANT ERNEST
MIMS; SERGEANT B. COOK; SERGEANT K. ARENS; MS. FULTON,
Medical Health Care Provider RN; RN MS. JUDY RABON; RN MS.
MCDONALD; MS. KELA E. THOMAS, Commission of Probation
Parole and Pardon Services Director; WILLIAM BYARS, JR.,
SCDC Director, et al; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BUDGET AND
CONTROL BOARD COMMITTEE; WILLIAM F. MARSCHER, III, SC
Commission on Indigent Defense; FREDERICK M. CORLEY,
Esquire; RANDOLPH MURDAUGH, III, Solicitor Attorney for the
State; WILLIAM T. HOWELL, Judge of the 14th Judicial
Circuit Court of SC; J. MCREE, MD, KCI Pharmacy; JUANITA
MOSS, Food Service Supervisor; MS. BELL, Food Service
Supervisor; MS. NORMAN, Food Service Supervisor; MS.
ANDERSON, Food Service Supervisor,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01872-RMG-BHH)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean,
CLARKE, JOHNSON, PETERSON & MCLEAN, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge, and dismissing his complaint without prejudice
against certain defendants. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the case is
ongoing in the district court against the remaining defendants,
the order Roberson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny
Roberson’s objection to the Appellees’ disclosure of corporate
affiliations. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3