Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Calvin R. Mattison v. Tony Brown Robert Carriles, 96-6526 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6526 Visitors: 22
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 99 F.3d 1130 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Calvin R. MATTISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tony BROWN; Robert Carriles, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-6526. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 3, 1996. Decided Oct. 10, 1996. Calvin R. Mattison, Ap
More

99 F.3d 1130

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Calvin R. MATTISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tony BROWN; Robert Carriles, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6526.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 3, 1996.
Decided Oct. 10, 1996.

Calvin R. Mattison, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. 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 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 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