Case ID: f-appx_607/html/0319-01.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

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.
    No. 15-6302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 18, 2015.
    Decided: June 23, 2015.
    Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean, Clarke, Johnson, Peterson & McLean, PA, Florence, 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   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.