Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nance v. Potter, 02-1354 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1354 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1354 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff -Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1083-1) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-1354



RONALD I. NANCE,

                                               Plaintiff -Appellant,

          versus


JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-1083-1)


Submitted:   July 25, 2002                 Decided:   July 31, 2002


Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronald I. Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ronald I. Nance appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion to reconsider a prior order granting the Government’s motion

for an extension of time to respond to Nance’s civil complaint.   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 interlocutory

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