Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Eugene Venable v. T. Wilson, Jr., Lieutenant G.L. Bass, Warden Jimm Webster Mr. Underwood, Medical Administration, 95-6720 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6720 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 18, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 61 F.3d 902 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Eugene VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. WILSON, Jr., Lieutenant; G.L. Bass, Warden; Jimm Webster; Mr. Underwood, Medical Administration, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-6720. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circui
More

61 F.3d 902

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Eugene VENABLE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
T. WILSON, Jr., Lieutenant; G.L. Bass, Warden; Jimm
Webster; Mr. Underwood, Medical Administration,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6720.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995
Decided: July 18, 1995

James Eugene Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA; Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Appellees.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment as to some defendants and dismissing some 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 Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Because some defendants and some claims remain, 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

*

We also note that were this appeal not interlocutory, it would be untimely. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)

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