Stanley Moultrie v. William Byars, Jr., No. 14-7873 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7873 STANLEY LEE MOULTRIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM BYARS, JR., South Carolina Department of Corrections Director; BRYAN P STIRLING; DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WARD; SCDC GENERAL COUNSEL DAYNE HAILE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN MCFADDEN; MAJOR C WEST; CHRISTOPHER D. FLORIAN; BETHEA LT MICHAEL TOMS; ANN HALLMAN, Agency Grievance Coordinator; MS GRAVES, ECI Grievance Coordinator; MARIA LEGGINS, Agency Mailroom Coordinator; LT JAMES MARTIN; WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Evan Warden; SGT H SIMS; MS. BAKER, Mailroom Coordinator; PAMELA MCDOWELL, Mailroom Supervisor; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BUSH, Lee CI; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NOLAN; ASSOCIATE WARDEN DEAN; K RIVERS, Lee CI Grievance Coordinator; JIMMY SLEIGH; DEPUTY WARDEN; LT JACK BROWN; MS CONYERS, Lee CI Officer; GENERAL COUNSEL TATARSKY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR MCCALL; AMY SMITH; D EASTRIDGE; FELICIA MCQUEEN; SANDRA BOWIE; DEPUTY WARDEN DAVIS; CAPTAIN MR. THOMAS; MS. WILSON; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (9:14-cv-01690-DCN-BM) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. April 28, 2015 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lee Moultrie, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Lee Moultrie seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text orders denying his motion to amend denying his motion for reconsideration. his complaint and This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). seeks to appeal are neither final interlocutory or collateral orders. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The orders Moultrie orders nor appealable Accordingly, we dismiss the 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.