Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07645/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07645-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7645

CHRISTOPHER ODOM,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS; 

CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON 

TAXPAYERS; CARTA BUS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; SHERIFF AL 

CANNON EMPLOYEES; SHERIFF AL CANNON; SHERIFF AL CANNON 

DETENTION CENTER; CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES; SOG, of Sheriff Al Cannon Detention 

Center; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

MENTAL HEALTH; G. WERBER BRYAN PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSPITAL; DR. 

FERLANTO; DR. GRISWALD; CRAFTS FARROW STATE HOSPITAL; SCDMH 

EMPLOYEES; SCDMH STAFF; SCDMH SECURITY; DHEC; CHAMPUS; 

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JUST CARE; GEO; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT; FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES 

SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; DR. RUSSELL 

KEITH; J. BENNICE; DEFENDANTS LIABILITY INSURANCE 

POLICYHOLDER; ALAN WILSON; ALBERT PIERCE; SC STATE 

TREASURY; SCDMH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-02441-RMG)

Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Appeal: 14-7645 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7645 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Odom appeals the district court’s order 

adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice Odom’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

complaint. 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). Because Odom may proceed with his claims by 

filing another complaint and providing factual allegations 

specifying how the named defendants violated his constitutional 

rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order 

with respect to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Odom’s 

motion to amend his claim. 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: 14-7645 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3