Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles William Levy v. George Mason University, C. J. Fuchs, 94-1298 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-1298 Visitors: 28
Filed: May 17, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 23 F.3d 401 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles William LEVY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, C. J. Fuchs, Defendants Appellees. No. 94-1298. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Submitted April 21, 1994. Decided May 17, 1994. Appeal from the U
More

23 F.3d 401
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles William LEVY, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, C. J. Fuchs, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1298.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted April 21, 1994.
Decided May 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-92-A)

Charles William Levy, appellant pro se.

Roscoe Connell Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for appellees.

E.D.VA.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is 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 order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

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