James Tinsley II v. James Singleton, No. 10-7309 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7309 JAMES D. TINSLEY, a/k/a James D. Tinsley, II, a/k/a Jimmy Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JAMES SINGLETON, Sheriff, Oconee County; GREG REED, Detective Oconee County; DAVID SMITH, Detective Oconee County; STEVE PRUITT, Major, Oconee County Detention Center; PHYLLIS LOMBARD, Oconee County Administrator; OCONEE COUNTY; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-25; SCOTT ARNOLD, Investigator, OCSO; JERRY MOSS, Sgt., OSCO; MARK LYLES, Sgt., OCSO; MIKE MCGOWAN, OSCO; GENTRY HAWK, Sgt., OCSO, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00532-SB) Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James D. Tinsley seeks to appeal the district court s order granting reconsideration Defendants in part of summary (2006) claims. and the denying district judgment motion in part court s on his his motion order 42 for granting U.S.C. § 1983 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949). nor an The order Tinsley seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.