Filed: Aug. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6433 MARK CORRIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIANIA CARMACK, Defendant - Appellee, and MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY; SARGEANT BAILEY; OFFICER BARNS; HOWARD ADAMS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6433 MARK CORRIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIANIA CARMACK, Defendant - Appellee, and MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY; SARGEANT BAILEY; OFFICER BARNS; HOWARD ADAMS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6433
MARK CORRIGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DIANIA CARMACK,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; PITT
COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY; SARGEANT BAILEY;
OFFICER BARNS; HOWARD ADAMS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR)
Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr.,
PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of one, but not all, Defendants named in
Corrigan’s action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is
not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocu-
tory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541
(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v.
Parke-Davis & Co.,
685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982).
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.
DISMISSED
2