Case Name: Leroy JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al CANNON, Sheriff; Mitch Lucas, Chief; Officer Wright; Officer Williams; Charleston County Detention Center; Corporal Goodyear; Officer Rivers; Officer Singletary, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 230 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 07-6330
Parties: Leroy JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al CANNON, Sheriff; Mitch Lucas, Chief; Officer Wright; Officer Williams; Charleston County Detention Center; Corporal Goodyear; Officer Rivers; Officer Singletary, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 303–303

Head Matter:
Leroy JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al CANNON, Sheriff; Mitch Lucas, Chief; Officer Wright; Officer Williams; Charleston County Detention Center; Corporal Goodyear; Officer Rivers; Officer Singletary, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 21, 2007.
Leroy Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard Eugene Ferrara, Jr., Joseph Dawson, III, Charleston County Attorney’s Office, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service of process as to defendants Charleston County Detention Center, Cannon, Wright, Lucas, Williams, and Goodyear. The complaint was also ordered to be served as to two remaining defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Jackson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is not a final order as to all claims against all defendants. 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.