Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

94-6124 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6124 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 26, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 36 F.3d 1093 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 RANKINS, a/k/a Abdul S. Muhammad, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CHOWAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; Chowan County Detention Facility; Fred A. Spruill, Sheriff; Walter Lynnheart; G. Jackson; John Doe, Jailer, Defendants Appellees
More

36 F.3d 1093

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 RANKINS, a/k/a Abdul S. Muhammad, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
CHOWAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; Chowan County Detention
Facility; Fred A. Spruill, Sheriff; Walter
Lynnheart; G. Jackson; John Doe,
Jailer, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6124.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 25, 1994.
Decided Sept. 26, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-406-H).

Michael Rankins, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the dismissal of some but not all claims in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. 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