Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hans-Peter Fischer v. Dudley Middleton, & Third Partyplaintiff-Appellee, and Edward Land, Third Party, 93-1488 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 93-1488 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 02, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 1 F.3d 1232 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Hans-Peter FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dudley MIDDLETON, Defendant & Third PartyPlaintiff-Appellee, and Edward LAND, Third Party Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-1488. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: July
More

1 F.3d 1232

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Hans-Peter FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Dudley MIDDLETON, Defendant & Third PartyPlaintiff-Appellee,
and
Edward LAND, Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-1488.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 16, 1993.
Decided: August 2, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-92-1737-A)

Hans-Peter Fischer, Appellant Pro Se.

James Gordon Kincheloe, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia; David Thomas Ralston, Jr., Roderick Benedict Williams, Leonard, Ralston, Stanton & Danks, Washington, D.C.; David Rosenblum, Rosenblum & Rosenblum, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Hans-Peter Fischer appeals the district court's order vacating a default judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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. The motion for sanctions is denied.

DISMISSED

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer