The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6575
JAMES BAILEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NURSE BROWN, a/k/a Wanda Brown, Alvin S. Glenn Detention
Center; DOCTOR BYRD, a/k/a Elin Berg, Head Physician Doctor,
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; LIEUTENANT JARVIS, Alvin S.
Glenn Detention Center; ALVIN S. GLENN DETENTION CENTER,
Director; HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, Alvin S. Glenn Detention
Center; HEAD MEDICAL DOCTOR, Alvin S. Glenn Detention
Center,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:08-cv-00244-HFF)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Thomas Clemmons,
Christopher Barton Major, G. Dewey Oxner, Jr., HAYNSWORTH,
SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Daniel Plyer,
William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina; Amanda R. Maybank, Roy Pearce Maybank, MAYBANK
LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against all but
one defendant, Nurse Brown, and ordering Bailey to show cause
for his failure to effect service upon Nurse Brown. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order
Bailey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
3