Filed: Aug. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1751 HENRY W. GETER, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOWNSHIP OF COTTAGE CITY; COTTAGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PERRY D. HOAK, Lieutenant, Cottage City Police Department; FINLEY, Officer, Cottage City Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-1928-DKC) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: Au
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1751 HENRY W. GETER, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOWNSHIP OF COTTAGE CITY; COTTAGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PERRY D. HOAK, Lieutenant, Cottage City Police Department; FINLEY, Officer, Cottage City Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-1928-DKC) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: Aug..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1751
HENRY W. GETER, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TOWNSHIP OF COTTAGE CITY; COTTAGE CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; PERRY D. HOAK, Lieutenant, Cottage
City Police Department; FINLEY, Officer,
Cottage City Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
01-1928-DKC)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry W. Geter, II, Appellant Pro Se. Yvette Michelle Bryant,
Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry W. Geter, II, seeks to appeal the order of a
magistrate judge denying his motion to have requests for admissions
deemed admitted. 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 Geter seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 -