Christopher Olszowy v. Sheriff Dewitt, No. 10-7231 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7231 CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; WAYNE Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, Major, DEWITT, Sheriff, Defendants Appellees, and JOSEPH STEPHEN SCHMUTZ; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE; SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J. WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O CONNELL; NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN; SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN CHURCH, Solicitor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-JMC-BM) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. December 2, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher and Anna Olszowy seek to appeal the district court order denying their motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen 545-46 neither v. (1949). a U.S.C. § 1292 Beneficial Indus. The the final order order collateral order. of jurisdiction. 28 nor an (2006); Loan Fed. Corp., Olszowys seek appealable R. 337 to Civ. U.S. P. 541, appeal is interlocutory or Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack Further, we deny their motion for a change of venue and to suspend briefing. 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

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.