Filed: Sep. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6261 RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden; W. COPELAND, Assistant Warden; JAMES POPE, DCE Principal; J. DAVID, DCE Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1143) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6261 RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden; W. COPELAND, Assistant Warden; JAMES POPE, DCE Principal; J. DAVID, DCE Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1143) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6261
RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
H. R. POWELL, Warden; W. COPELAND, Assistant
Warden; JAMES POPE, DCE Principal; J. DAVID,
DCE Regional Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District
Judge. (CA-95-1143)
Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie L. Simmons, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order overruling
his objections to the assessed partial filing fee and granting him
an additional thirty days to pay the fee. 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