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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1354 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff -Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1354 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff -Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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