Filed: Mar. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7048 SAMUEL ALS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. C. WELLS; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, Defendants - Appellees, and J. A. CAREY, former Chief of Police for the City of Newport News, Virginia; BARRY E. DUVAL, Mayor of the City of Newport News, Virginia, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7048 SAMUEL ALS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. C. WELLS; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, Defendants - Appellees, and J. A. CAREY, former Chief of Police for the City of Newport News, Virginia; BARRY E. DUVAL, Mayor of the City of Newport News, Virginia, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-9..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7048
SAMUEL ALS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
N. C. WELLS; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
J. A. CAREY, former Chief of Police for the
City of Newport News, Virginia; BARRY E.
DUVAL, Mayor of the City of Newport News,
Virginia,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge;
David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-65)
Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: March 4, 1997
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Als, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Michael Kaine, MEZZULLO &
MCCANDLISH, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Allen Link Jackson, Deputy
City Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying
his motion for a subpoena duces tecum. 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 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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
3