Dennis Givens v. Scott Smith, No. 13-1928 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1928 DENNIS A. GIVENS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C. GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN M. FOWLER, individually and collectively; D. LUKE FURBEE, individually and collectively; OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and collectively; OFFICER J. E. DEAN, individually and collectively; J. C. WEAVER, a/k/a Jack C. Weaver, individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE, individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT, individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON, individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE, individually and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis A. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Kenneth Louis Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dennis A. Givens seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. Corp., 337 R. Civ. U.S. P. 541, The order Givens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Givens motion for a transcript and 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 this 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.