Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-6040 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6040 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 18, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 1429 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James D. HABURN, Sr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. Jennifer HICKS, Defendant Appellee, and PERSON COUNTY; Sharon Betterton, Roxboro City Police Officer; Detective Regan; Detective Perkins; Person County District Attorney; Rape Counselo
More

19 F.3d 1429

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James D. HABURN, Sr., Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Jennifer HICKS, Defendant Appellee,
and
PERSON COUNTY; Sharon Betterton, Roxboro City Police
Officer; Detective Regan; Detective Perkins;
Person County District Attorney; Rape
Counselors, Defendants.

No. 94-6040.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 1994.
Decided March 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.

James D. Haburn, Sr., appellant Pro Se.

M.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the dismissal of one Defendant in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

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

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