Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6170 JACOB MUHAMMAD FARRAKHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; MUHAMMAD SALAAM, Islamic Chaplain; RICHARD LANHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1081-AMD) Submitted: June 11, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6170 JACOB MUHAMMAD FARRAKHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; MUHAMMAD SALAAM, Islamic Chaplain; RICHARD LANHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1081-AMD) Submitted: June 11, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6170
JACOB MUHAMMAD FARRAKHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD MOATS, Warden; MUHAMMAD SALAAM, Islamic
Chaplain; RICHARD LANHAM,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-
1081-AMD)
Submitted: June 11, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996
Before HALL, LUTTIG, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob Muhammad Farrakhan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTOR-
NEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order disposing of only
one of his claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint.
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.
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