Wagner v. Crews, No. 06-6324 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6324 THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. CREWS; UNNAMED POLICE OFFICERS; CYNTHIA MCCANTS, Special Agent; MICHAEL ANDERSON, Detective; MAGWOOD, Detective; WILLIAM SHEPARDS, Detective; PAUL TITLE, Detective; MICHAEL RINGLEY, Detective; PAUL MCMONIGAL, Detective; HOWARD, Detective; TURNER, Detective; MELERINE, Detective; LARRY RICE, Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:05-cv-01100-GRA) Submitted: July 14, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Darren K. Sanders, BUYCK LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Theodore Thomas Wagner seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to deny Appellees motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and granting the parties additional time to file dispositive motions. 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 Wagner seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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.