Filed: Sep. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6913 JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL D. MURPHY, Dr., Defendant - Appellee, and DAVID M. HINDS, PA; JAMIE REID; PAULA SMITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-752-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6913 JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL D. MURPHY, Dr., Defendant - Appellee, and DAVID M. HINDS, PA; JAMIE REID; PAULA SMITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-752-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6913
JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL D. MURPHY, Dr.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DAVID M. HINDS, PA; JAMIE REID; PAULA SMITH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-02-752-5-H)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Scott Clegg, Appellant Pro Se. Renee Billings Crawford,
CRAWFORD LAW OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Scott Clegg appeals the district court’s order setting
aside a default judgment against one of the named defendants and
denying Clegg’s discovery motions. 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 Clegg seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. Accordingly, we deny Clegg’s “motion for clarification” and
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