Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08064/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8064

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

JOSEPH STEPHEN SCHMUTZ; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; 

BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY 

COURTS; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE; SOUTH CAROLINA BAR 

ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J. WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O 

GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O’CONNELL; NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; 

CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN; SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN 

CHURCH, Solicitor,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WAYNE DEWITT, Sheriff, Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, 

Major, 

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-PMD-BM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 09-8064 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. 

Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8064 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Leonard Olszowy and Anna Olszowy seek to 

appeal the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting 

in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the 

Olszowys’ claims against all but two Defendants. 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, 545-46 (1949). The 

order the Olszowys’ seek 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

Appeal: 09-8064 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3