Thomas Firriolo v. SLED, No. 19-1927 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1927 THOMAS RAYMOND FIRRIOLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, State of South Carolina, Employees, et al.; LIEUTENANT ELIZABETH CORLEY, (SLED) South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, State of South Carolina; MARK KEEL, Chief of (S.L.E.D.), Law Enforcement Division, State of South Carolina; PAUL GRANT, Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, State of South Carolina; CITY OF GREENVILLE, Employees; MR. BRAD RICE; MR. JEFF BOWEN; MR. GARY FENELL; MS. JODIE DUDASH; MR. BOBBIE SKINNER; MS. CYNTHA VILARDO; MS. TOMMY, of Greenville Cares (Jane Doe), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (3:17-cv-03319-DCC-SVH) Submitted: December 3, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Raymond Firriolo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Raymond Firriolo seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing him to file an amended complaint and denying as moot his previous request for an extension of time. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 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). The order Firriolo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 2

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.