Greg Givens v. Scott Smith, No. 13-1841 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1841 GREG P. GIVENS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C. GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN M. FOWLER, individually and collectively; D. LUKE FURBEE, individually and collectively; OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and collectively; OFFICER D. L. ROBINSON, individually and collectively; COUNTY OF OHIO, West Virginia, individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE, individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT, individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON, individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE, individually and collectively; JULIE L. KREEFER, individually and collectively; TONI VANCAMP, individually and collectively; THE STATE JOURNAL, individually and collectively; SUSAN HAMRICK, individually and collectively, Defendants Appellees, and J. C. WEAVER, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00155-FPS-JES) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Greg P. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Kenneth Louis Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia; Kevin A. Nelson, HUDDLESTON & BOLEN, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Robert Gregory McDermott, MCDERMOTT & BONENBERGER, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Greg P. Givens seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part Defendants motion to dismiss, and imposing a prefiling injunction. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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 v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Givens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. for appointment of We deny Givens motions to strike and counsel. 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.
