Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James BAILEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Nurse BROWN, a/k/a Wanda Brown, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; Doctor Byrd, a/k/a Elin Berg, Head Physician Doctor, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; Lieutenant Jarvis, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, Director; Health Care Provider, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; Head Medical Doctor, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-6575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 15, 2009.
    Decided: Oct. 19, 2009.
    James Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Thomas Clemmons, Christopher Barton Major, G. Dewey Oxner, Jr., Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Daniel Plyer, William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Amanda R. Maybank, Roy Pearce Maybank, Maybank Law Firm, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against all but one defendant, Nurse Brown, and ordering Bailey to show cause for his failure to effect service upon Nurse Brown. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bailey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.