Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William D. Longenette v. Arthur McKenzie Sheriff Charles Shamblin, Deputy Sheriff, Ohio County Jail Robert Abercrombie, Administrator, 94-6628 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6628 Visitors: 35
Filed: Aug. 02, 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Summary: 30 F.3d 130 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William D. LONGENETTE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Arthur MCKENZIE, Sheriff; Charles Shamblin, Deputy Sheriff, Ohio County Jail; Robert Abercrombie, Administrator, Defendants Appellees. No. 94-6628. United States Court of Appeals, Four
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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William D. LONGENETTE, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Arthur MCKENZIE, Sheriff; Charles Shamblin, Deputy Sheriff,
Ohio County Jail; Robert Abercrombie,
Administrator, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6628.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994
Decided: August 2, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-94-29-E)

William D. Longenette, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying a waiver of payment of filing fees and granting a thirty day extension to pay a previously assessed partial filing fee. 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 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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