UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7873
STANLEY LEE MOULTRIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYARS, JR., South Carolina Department of Corrections
Director; BRYAN P STIRLING; DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WARD;
SCDC GENERAL COUNSEL DAYNE HAILE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
MCFADDEN; MAJOR C WEST; CHRISTOPHER D. FLORIAN; BETHEA LT
MICHAEL TOMS; ANN HALLMAN, Agency Grievance Coordinator; MS
GRAVES, ECI Grievance Coordinator; MARIA LEGGINS, Agency
Mailroom Coordinator; LT JAMES MARTIN; WILLIE L. EAGLETON,
Evan Warden; SGT H SIMS; MS. BAKER, Mailroom Coordinator;
PAMELA MCDOWELL, Mailroom Supervisor; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
BUSH, Lee CI; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NOLAN; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
DEAN; K RIVERS, Lee CI Grievance Coordinator; JIMMY SLEIGH;
DEPUTY WARDEN; LT JACK BROWN; MS CONYERS, Lee CI Officer;
GENERAL COUNSEL TATARSKY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR MCCALL; AMY
SMITH; D EASTRIDGE; FELICIA MCQUEEN; SANDRA BOWIE; DEPUTY
WARDEN DAVIS; CAPTAIN MR. THOMAS; MS. WILSON; GOVERNOR
NIKKI HALEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,
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-DCN-BM)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
text orders denying his motion to amend his complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders Moultrie
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. 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