Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6838 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STU TAYLOR, Assistant Warden; SERGEANT RITCHIE, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia - Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: Augus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6838 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STU TAYLOR, Assistant Warden; SERGEANT RITCHIE, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia - Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6838
WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STU TAYLOR, Assistant Warden; SERGEANT
RITCHIE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia -
Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM)
Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Irvin Marable, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Irvin Marable, Sr., appeals district court’s order
granting summary 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. § 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 also deny the
pending motions to appoint counsel. 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