Robert Frost, Jr. v. SC Dep't of Corrections, No. 12-7482 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7482 ROBERT FROST, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DIRECTOR BILL BYARS, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Institution; MS. MONTOUTH, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Ridgeland Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN BEST, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (5:11-cv-02520-JFA-KDW) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Frost, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Cavender, Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Frost, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation and denying without prejudice the Defendants motion for summary judgment in Frost s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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 order Frost seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials Accordingly, we We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.