Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Freddy Sylvestor Campbell v. Sam Pennington, 94-6257 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6257 Visitors: 27
Filed: Sep. 07, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 35 F.3d 555 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Freddy Sylvestor CAMPBELL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Sam PENNINGTON, Defendant Appellee. No. 94-6257. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted July 19, 1994. Decided Sept. 7, 1994. Appeal from the United States Distr
More

35 F.3d 555

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Freddy Sylvestor CAMPBELL, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Sam PENNINGTON, Defendant Appellee.

No. 94-6257.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 19, 1994.
Decided Sept. 7, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-94-91-1)

Freddy Sylvestor Campbell, appellant pro se.

S.D.W.Va.

DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint for failure to object to the magistrate judge's report. The district court later reopened the case and permitted Appellant to file objections; the case is currently being considered by the district court. 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