UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6302
TYRONE LAMAR ROBERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden Lee Corrections Institution;
LIEUTENANT A. DAVIS; MS. FULTON, Medical Health Care Provider
RN; RN MS. JUDY RABON; RN MS. MCDONALD; 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
MAJOR JAMES DEAN; LIEUTENANT ERNEST MIMS; SERGEANT B. COOK;
SERGEANT K. ARENS; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
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,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge.
(2:13-cv-01872-BHH)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending granting
Defendants’ motions for summary 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 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. We deny Roberson’s motions to place his case in
abeyance, for costs, and for duress, and 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