Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Chandler v. Carteret County, 01-6139 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6139 Visitors: 103
Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6139 DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees, and OLIVIA BENNETT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTI
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 01-6139



DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR.,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD       OF
COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff,

                                             Defendants - Appellees,
          and


OLIVIA BENNETT,

                                                           Defendant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F)


Submitted:   March 22, 2001                 Decided:   March 30, 2001


Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Dorman Mack Chandler appeals the district court’s order dis-

missing certain defendants from his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994). 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. § 1291 (1994), and certain inter-

locutory and collateral orders, 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.

     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

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