UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7645
CHRISTOPHER ODOM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS;
CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON
TAXPAYERS; CARTA BUS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS;
CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; SHERIFF AL
CANNON EMPLOYEES; SHERIFF AL CANNON; SHERIFF AL CANNON
DETENTION CENTER; CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES; SOG, of Sheriff Al Cannon Detention
Center; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH; G. WERBER BRYAN PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSPITAL; DR.
FERLANTO; DR. GRISWALD; CRAFTS FARROW STATE HOSPITAL; SCDMH
EMPLOYEES; SCDMH STAFF; SCDMH SECURITY; DHEC; CHAMPUS;
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JUST CARE; GEO;
CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT; FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; DR. RUSSELL
KEITH; J. BENNICE; DEFENDANTS LIABILITY INSURANCE
POLICYHOLDER; ALAN WILSON; ALBERT PIERCE; SC STATE
TREASURY; SCDMH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-02441-RMG)
Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Odom appeals the district court’s order
adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice Odom’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. 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 Odom may proceed with his claims by
filing another complaint and providing factual allegations
specifying how the named defendants violated his constitutional
rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order
with respect to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Odom’s
motion to amend his claim. 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