Case Name: Joseph Grayson WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Silent Knight Company; Coastal Empire Fire and Security, Incorporated; Tony Bush, Jail Doctor; Mark Fitzgibbons, Jail Administrator, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-22
Citations: 160 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 05-7578
Parties: Joseph Grayson WARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Silent Knight Company; Coastal Empire Fire and Security, Incorporated; Tony Bush, Jail Doctor; Mark Fitzgibbons, Jail Administrator, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Joseph Grayson WARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Silent Knight Company; Coastal Empire Fire and Security, Incorporated; Tony Bush, Jail Doctor; Mark Fitzgibbons, Jail Administrator, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7578.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2005.
Joseph Grayson Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., Law Office of Duffie Stone, LLC, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Grayson Ward seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting partial summary judgment on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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 Ward 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED