Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07536/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07536-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7536

WILLIAM E. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BERLIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARCUM; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLANKENSHIP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

GOODWIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VANMETER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

LAMBERT; MICHAEL CLARK,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL & CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

AUTHORITY; SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL JAIL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

BLEVINS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TOOTAL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-07358)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-7536 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

William E. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Tim J. Yianne, MANNION 

GRAY, Charleston, West Virginia; John P. Fuller, James William

Marshall, III, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7536 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

William E. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting partial summary judgment to Appellees on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. 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 Smith 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 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

Appeal: 14-7536 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3