Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7427 CHRISTOPHER M. PALMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PROPERTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT STAFF; MAILROOM STAFF; J. HORTON, Mailroom Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; C. RAMBO, Prop- erty Room Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correc- tional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-365-5) Submitt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7427 CHRISTOPHER M. PALMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PROPERTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT STAFF; MAILROOM STAFF; J. HORTON, Mailroom Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; C. RAMBO, Prop- erty Room Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correc- tional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-365-5) Submitte..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7427
CHRISTOPHER M. PALMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PROPERTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT STAFF; MAILROOM
STAFF; J. HORTON, Mailroom Supervisor, Keen
Mountain Correctional Center; C. RAMBO, Prop-
erty Room Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correc-
tional Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-365-5)
Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 24, 1996
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher M. Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying his
discovery motion and granting Appellees' motion for a protective
order. 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 interlocu-
tory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 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.
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
2