Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Odom v. Smalls, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Odom's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Odom, a pro se plaintiff, sought to appeal a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against three defendants. However, the order Odom appealed was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the court may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders or certain interlocutory orders, it dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6921

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Odom's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Odom, a pro se plaintiff, sought to appeal a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against three defendants. However, the order Odom appealed was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the court may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders or certain interlocutory orders, it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Odom v. Smalls, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Odom's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Odom, a pro se plaintiff, sought to appeal a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against three defendants. However, the order Odom appealed was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the court may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders or certain interlocutory orders, it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Certiorari dismissed, March 22, 2010

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6921

    CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    VERONICA SMALLS, Officer Judge; PATRICIA BALDWIN, Officer
    Judge; ROGER OWEN, Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:09-cv-00629-PMD)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 2009

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge,


    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Decided:

    NIEMEYER,

    October 26, 2009

    Circuit

    Judge,

    and

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher

    A.

    Odom

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    magistrate

    judges report and recommendation in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000)


    suit. *

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and


    collateral
    54(b);

    Cohen

    (1949).
    nor

    orders,

    an

    v.

    28

    U.S.C.

    Beneficial

    1292
    Indus.

    (2006);
    Loan

    Fed.

    Corp.,

    R.

    337

    Civ.
    U.S.

    541

    The order Odom seeks to appeal is neither a final order


    appealable

    interlocutory

    or

    collateral

    order.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


    dispense

    P.

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    Odoms notice of appeal could also have been construed as


    objections to the magistrate judges report.
    As we lack
    jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion on the
    proper construction of Odoms filing.

    You might also like