Christopher West v. William Byars, Jr., No. 15-6643 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6643 CHRISTOPHER WEST, a/k/a Christopher Gearl West, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR., in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; WARDEN CECILIA REYNOLDS, in her individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN JERRY WASHINGTON, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; MAJOR DARREN SEAWARD, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; CAPTAIN DANIEL DUBOSE, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; SERGEANT BAKER, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; OFFICER CHRIS HUNT, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; OFFICER ROBERT BIGHAM, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; INST. INVESTIGATOR SYLVESTA ROBINSON, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC; NURSE LUANNE MUNGO, in his individual and official capacatiy as corrections employees SC; ROBERT BRYAN, in his individual and official capacity as corrections employees SC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (5:13-cv-01849-DCN) Submitted: June 17, 2016 Decided: July 14, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher West, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Paul Jones, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher West seeks to appeal the district court’s order, accepting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in West’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. over final orders, This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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 (1949). neither a final order nor The order West seeks to appeal is an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
