Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-7572 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7572 Visitors: 41
Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 81 F.3d 150 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Arthur F. PIGGOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William B. DORSEY; Baxter Bell, Doctor, Jail Doctor, Williamsburg-James City County Jail; James Paulk, Classification Officer, Williamsburg-James City County Jail, Defendants-Appellee
More

81 F.3d 150

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Arthur F. PIGGOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William B. DORSEY; Baxter Bell, Doctor, Jail Doctor,
Williamsburg-James City County Jail; James Paulk,
Classification Officer,
Williamsburg-James City County
Jail, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7572.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-713-CV-2)

Arthur F. Piggott, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order overruling Appellant's objections to payment of a partial filing fee and granting him an additional thirty days to raise the required 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. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 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 on appeal 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.

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