Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06041/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06041-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6041

WILLIAM G. HARDEN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SCOTT BODIFORD, Administrator, in his official and 

individual capacity; JAMES M. DORRIETY, Administrator, in 

his official and individual capacity; CORPORAL CATHEY, 

Detention Officer, in her official and individual capacity; 

GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; PAUL B. WICKENSIMER, 

Clerk of Court for Greenville County, in his official and 

individual capacity,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:09-cv-02362-HFF-WMC)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William G. Harden, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., 

CHAPMAN, HARTER, & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6041 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William G. Harden seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing certain defendants and denying Harden’s motion 

to amend. 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 orders Harden seeks to appeal are neither 

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

deny Harden’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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: 10-6041 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2