Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Christopher Odom. The district court had dismissed Odom's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Odom to file another complaint with more specific factual allegations. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    54 views3 pages
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Christopher Odom. The district court had dismissed Odom's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Odom to file another complaint with more specific factual allegations. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7645

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Christopher Odom. The district court had dismissed Odom's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Odom to file another complaint with more specific factual allegations. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    54 views3 pages

    Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Christopher Odom. The district court had dismissed Odom's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Odom to file another complaint with more specific factual allegations. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    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

    Before AGEE and


    Circuit Judge.

    KEENAN,

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher

    Odom

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    dismissing

    without

    prejudice

    Odoms

    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

    complaint

    another

    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).


    we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    motion

    to

    amend

    his

    claim.

    We

    dispense

    with

    Accordingly,
    We deny Odoms
    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

    You might also like