Filed: Oct. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6857 RAYMOND GRIFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DONNIE HARRISON; OFFICER GILLIAM; OFFICER LAMAR; SERGEANT BRIDGES; OFFICER BEY-ADAMS; SERGEANT SMITH; OFFICER HAMMONDS; JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants – Appellees, and CAPTAIN STEINBECK, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03276-D) Submitted: October 1
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6857 RAYMOND GRIFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DONNIE HARRISON; OFFICER GILLIAM; OFFICER LAMAR; SERGEANT BRIDGES; OFFICER BEY-ADAMS; SERGEANT SMITH; OFFICER HAMMONDS; JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants – Appellees, and CAPTAIN STEINBECK, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03276-D) Submitted: October 13..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6857
RAYMOND GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DONNIE HARRISON; OFFICER GILLIAM; OFFICER LAMAR; SERGEANT
BRIDGES; OFFICER BEY-ADAMS; SERGEANT SMITH; OFFICER
HAMMONDS; JOHN AND JANE DOE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
CAPTAIN STEINBECK,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03276-D)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing, in part, Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The order Griffin 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2