Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

WORKMAN v. VANDERMOSTEN 4993 CPL (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John VANDERMOSTEN, Assistant Administrative Director in individual and official capacity; Roy Strickland, Commissary in individual and official capacity; Sergeant Couch, in individual and official capacity; Mr. Bodiford, Deputy Director Greenville County Detention Center in individual and official capacity; Greenville County Council, in individual and official capacity; T. Urick, Officer in individual and official capacity; Mr. Buchan, Officer in individual and official capacity; Tracy H. Krein, Medical Administrator in individual and official capacity; Zeqharre, 4993 in individual and official capacity; Malaone, in individual and official capacity; Jimmy Thompson, in individual and official capacity; CPL Nelms, in individual and official capacity; C. Laborde, in individual and official capacity; C. Angello, in individual and official capacity; Smith, in individual and official capacity; Greenville County Food and Mail Services, in individual and official capacity; J. Francis; Bravo Shift, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7584

Decided: April 03, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Davis, Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing Workman's civil complaint as to some, but not all, Defendants. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Workman 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

WORKMAN v. VANDERMOSTEN 4993 CPL (2018)

Docket No: No. 17-7584

Decided: April 03, 2018

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard