John Singletary, Jr. v. City of North Charleston, No. 11-1233 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1233 JOHN G. SINGLETARY, JR.; CARLA C. SINGLETARY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT; R. KEITH SUMMEY, City of North Charleston Mayor; DARBIS BRIGGMAN, City of North Charleston Chief Building Official; WILLIAM B. GORE, Zoning Director; RICK WILLIAMS, Building Inspector; ADRIENNE WILLIAMS, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals; DONALD SCHAEFFER, ZBA Vice Chairman and May 5, 2009 Acting ZBA Chair; MARY COHEN, Zoning Inspector, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:09-cv-01612-MBS-BM) Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John G. Singletary, Jr.; Carla C. Singletary, Appellants Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, Sandra Jane Senn, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John G. Singletary, Jr., and Carla C. Singletary seek to appeal from various text orders entered by the magistrate judge in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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, 545-46 (1949). The orders sought to be appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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.