Hugh Gregory Turbeville v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6115
HUGH GREGORY TURBEVILLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NEIL LIVINGSTON, Horry County Police Officer;
BARBRA PRATT, South Carolina Bar Member, court
attorney; COREY SANDERS, Assistant Solicitor,
South Carolina Bar Member, South Carolina
Solicitor, Horry County; RALPH WILSON, South
Carolina Bar Member, South Carolina Solicitor,
Horry County; CHARLIE CONDON, South Carolina
Bar Member, South Carolina Attorney General;
GARY MAYNARD, South Carolina Department of
Corrections Director; DOUG CATOE, South
Carolina Department of Corrections Official;
JIM HODGES, Governor of South Carolina; HENRY
B. SMYTHE, South Carolina Bar President, all
personally and officially,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SIDNEY FLOYD, South Carolina Bar Member, South
Carolina Attorney General,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-3452-4)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: June 30, 2004

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugh Gregory Turbeville, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, AIKEN
BRIDGES, Florence, South Carolina; Barbra W. Pratt, Little River,
South Carolina; Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Amy Hill, SOWELL, GRAY,
STEPP, & LAFFITTE, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Hugh Gregory Turbeville seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss one of the ten named Defendants in Turbeville’s civil
action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order Turbeville 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 the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --