Loushonda Myers v. at&tcorporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2214
LOUSHONDA MYERS; CM, a minor child; AM, a minor child; MM;
TYRE MYERS; DAMEON MYERS; MARVIN MYERS, JR.; CHARLENA
FRANKLIN; ERNEST MATTISON; SANDRA MATTISON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AT&T CORPORATION; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF AT&T CORPORATION; US
MARSHALS SERVICE; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF US MARSHAL SERVICE;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; PAUL GARDNER; JEFFREY M. LONG;
PATRICK J. MALEY; ROBERT WAIZENHOFFER; JEFFREY J. BRUNING;
WILLIE HINDS; GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN
OFFICERS, AGENTS OF GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; 15TH
CIRCUIT DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT, formerly Georgetown County
Organized Crime Bureau; GREG HEMBREE; SCOTT HIXON; STEPHEN
BROWN; MAGDELINE SALMENO; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION, SLED; UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES IN SOUTH
CAROLINA; KERI POPE; KEENAN KEITH; RANDY GAMBLE; JIMMY
CAGLE; JODY WARD; MICAH LEDDY; GEORGETOWN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, AGENTS OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE; BRYAN KONIG; JACK SCOVILLE; 15TH CIRCUIT
SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Georgetown and Horry Counties; DAN FURR;
KELVIN WAITES; SCOTT SCOGGIN; LANE CRIBB; UNKNOWN INFORMANTS
AND-OR WITNESSES OF THE GCPD; NELSON BROWN; GLEN KUFEN;
JERMAINE ARMSTRONG; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JOHN HILLIARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01432-RMG)
Submitted: March 7, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loushonda Myers; CM; AM; MM; Tyre Myers; Dameon Myers; Marvin
Myers, Jr.; Charlena Franklin; Ernest Mattison; Sandra Mattison,
Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing their civil complaint without prejudice and without
service of process. 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 Appellants seek to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. See Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521
F.3d 290, 294-96 (4th Cir. 2008); Go Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft
Corp., 508 F.3d 170, 176 (4th Cir. 2007); 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 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 of 3 --