Reaves v. SC Democratic Party, No. 05-2388 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2388 REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES; FANNIE MELETTE; MICHAEL SMALL; LAMAR MELETTE; BETTY R. DAVIS; LEWAN MELETTE; PATRICIA BENNETT; MCROY BARR; WILLIE JOHNSON; JERRY MASON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and DAVID FRAIZER; JOSEPH BENNETT; BOBBY G. SNOWEN; FRANKLIN M. SNOWEN; KENAKENOA N. GODBOAT; MCARTHER BRUNSON; ZUYNETRA BRUNSON; MARSHALL RAINEY; PATRICIA BRUNSON, Plaintiffs, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION; DILLON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; MARLBORO COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; MARION COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; FLORENCE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-04-2047-4) Submitted: June 23, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Fannie Melette, Michael Small, Lamar Melette, Betty R. Davis, Lewan Melette, Patricia Bennett, McRoy Barr, Willie Johnson, Jerry Mason, Appellants Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, SANDERS & NETTLES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Thomas Parkin C. Hunter, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina; Lucas C. Padgett, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Charleston, South Carolina; Clyde Havird Jones, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth Ramage McMahon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina; Charlie James Blake, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the standing order referring pretrial matters in pro se cases to a magistrate judge for report and recommendation. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Nor has the district court entered a final order in this case. 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 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.