UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7123
STANLEY LEE MOULTRIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYARS, JR., South Carolina Department of Corrections
Director; BRYAN P. STIRLING; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALAN WILSON; DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WARD; SCDC
GENERAL COUNSEL DAYNE HAILE; CHRISTOPHER FLORIAN; ANN
HALLMAN, Agency Grievance Coordinator; MARIA LEGGINS, Agency
Mailroom Coordinator; WILLIE EAGLETON, Evan Warden;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN MCFADDEN; MAJOR C. WEST; BETHEA LIEUTENANT
MICHAEL TOMS; MS. BAKER, Mailroom Coordinator; MS. GRAVES,
ECI Grievance Coordinator; PAMELA MCDOWELL, Mailroom
Supervisor; LIEUTENANT JAMES MARTIN; SERGEANT H. SIMS;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN BUSH, Lee CI; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NOLAN;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN DEAN; K. RIVERS, Lee CI Grievance
Coordinator; JIMMY SLEIGH; DEPUTY WARDEN; LIEUTENANT JACK
BROWN; CECIL WILSON; MS. CONYERS, Lee CI Officer; GENERAL
COUNSEL TATARSKY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR MCCALL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
Judge. (9:14-cv-01690-JFA-BM)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lee Moultrie, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki,
WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lee Moultrie seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying Moultrie’s motion to alter or amend the
text order denying his request for a default judgment. 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). The
order Moultrie 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3