Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gregory v. Boyers, 96-6608 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6608 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6608 EARL LINWOOD GREGORY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. BOYERS; C. H. BYERS, Sergeant; C. D. BUTLER, Corporal; J. FRIDLEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CHARLES T. CUNNIFF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-473-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 29, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-6608



EARL LINWOOD GREGORY,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

R. BOYERS; C. H. BYERS, Sergeant; C. D.
BUTLER, Corporal; J. FRIDLEY; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER MINTER; CHARLES T. CUNNIFF,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CA-94-473-R)

Submitted:   June 20, 1996                 Decided:   July 29, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Earl Linwood Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judg-

ment in favor of several Defendants, leaving one Defendant remain-

ing in the case. 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

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