Filed: May 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6290 DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAN BRAXTON; MAJOR FLEMING; S. MULLINS, Lieutenant; RON FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1126-7) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6290 DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAN BRAXTON; MAJOR FLEMING; S. MULLINS, Lieutenant; RON FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1126-7) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6290
DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAN BRAXTON; MAJOR FLEMING; S. MULLINS,
Lieutenant; RON FOWLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-1126-7)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Edward Crawley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order Crawley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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