William McKinnedy, III v. Cecil Reynolds, No. 08-8499 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8499 WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CECIL REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution; ROBERT WARD, a/k/a Bob Ward; JON E. OZMINT; MARK SANFORD; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER; BARTON VINCENT; MARY COLEMAN; SANDRA BOWIE; A. HARDIN; A. SELLERS; JEROME ARMSTRONG; ROBINSON; JAMES WAKELEY; BECKWITH; JAMES BAYTES; ROBERT HUGGINS, Bob Huggins; DERWIN NEISMAN; JERRY WASHINGTON; T. A. SMITH; PRICE; MR. SEWARD; DUBOSE; CLAUDER; DAVID M. TATARSKY; ROBERT JACOBS, a/k/a Bob Jacobs; OSCAR FAULKENBERRY; CAPTAIN THOMAS, Kershaw Correctional Institution; DANIEL J. MURPHY, Inspector General of South Carolina Department of Corrections; LINDA J. MARTIN, OPNS, Secretary, General Counsel, SCDC s Headquarters; PATTERSON, SCDC s General Counsel Office, Defendants Appellees, and MIKE FAIR; JOHN D. MCLEOD; MARVIN F. KITTRELL; JOHN DOE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-03169-HMH-WMC) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Clayton McKinnedy, III, seeks to appeal two orders: motion (1) for the magistrate reconsideration judge s of an order denying earlier order McKinnedy s denying his motion for recusal and (2) the district court s order adopting the magistrate prejudice judge s McKinnedy s defendants. This recommendation claims court may and against exercise dismissing some without but not all 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 (1949). orders v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. The orders McKinnedy seeks to appeal are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense 541 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 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.