Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Murray v. North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Incorporated North Carolina Department of Corrections Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., 94-6508 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6508 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 26, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 130 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael MURRAY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, Jr., Defendants Appellees. No. 94-6508. United States Court of Appeals, Fo
More

30 F.3d 130

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael MURRAY, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FRANKLIN E.
FREEMAN, Jr., Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6508.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994
Decided: July 26, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-188-F)

Michael Murray, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing certain claims from his action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). 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.

3

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