Christopher Olszowy v. Joseph Schmutz, No. 09-8064 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8064 CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOSEPH STEPHEN SCHMUTZ; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE; SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J. WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O CONNELL; NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN; SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN CHURCH, Solicitor, Defendants Appellees, and WAYNE DEWITT, Sheriff, Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, Major, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-PMD-BM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Leonard Olszowy and Anna Olszowy seek to appeal the district court s order adopting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge s recommendation to dismiss the Olszowys claims against all but two Defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and 28 U.S.C. certain § 1292 interlocutory (2006); Fed. R. and Civ. collateral P. 54(b); orders, Cohen Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). v. The order the Olszowys seek 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 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.