Dennis Temple v. Owen McClelland LLC, No. 15-7254 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7254 DENNIS TEMPLE, a/k/a Dennis Maurice Temple, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OWEN MCCLELLAND LLC; ALL SAFE STORAGE CO.; OWE M. ROBERTS, IV, in his individual capacity; HELEN HART PILLANS ROBERTS, in her individual capacity; KIMBERLY EDWARDS CHEWNING, Manager, in her individual capacity; JAMES SINGLETON, Sheriff, in his individual capacity; GREG REED, Captain, in his individual capacity; SCOTT ARNOLD, Sergeant, in his individual capacity; JERRY MOSS, Sergeant, in his individual capacity; CHRISSY T. ADAMS, Solicitor, in her individual capacity; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR LINDSEY S. SIMMONS, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-00652-JFA) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. December 18, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dennis Temple, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dennis Temple seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate dismissing his civil action without prejudice. judge and This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 28 U.S.C. certain § 1292 Beneficial Indus. interlocutory (2012); Loan Fed. and collateral R. P. 337 Corp., Civ. U.S. 54(b); 541, 545 orders. Cohen 47 v. (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Temple seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
