Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6434 DAVID M. SIMMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR; W. D. CALL; SERGEANT ROSS; SERGEANT JONES; SERGEANT JENKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1269-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6434 DAVID M. SIMMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR; W. D. CALL; SERGEANT ROSS; SERGEANT JONES; SERGEANT JENKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1269-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6434
DAVID M. SIMMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN TAYLOR; W. D. CALL; SERGEANT ROSS;
SERGEANT JONES; SERGEANT JENKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-1269-R)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals an order of the magistrate judge denying his
motion to reconsider a stay of the case pending exhaustion of the
state grievance procedure. We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction because the order is not appealable. This court may exer-
cise 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