Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr. v. Thomas J. Andrews, 93-1524 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-1524 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 07, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 4 F.3d 984 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Albert Charles BURGESS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-1524. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: August 20, 1993. Decided: September 7, 1993. Appeal from the United
More

4 F.3d 984

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Albert Charles BURGESS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas J. ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-1524.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 20, 1993.
Decided: September 7, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CA-86-503-C-C-P)

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Richard Cartwright Carmichael, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

W.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., appeals from the district court's orders denying Burgess's numerous pretrial motions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer