Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robert J. Schad, and Jose Schad v. John S. Grinalds, Individually and as Headmaster of Woodberry Forest School, 94-2225 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-2225 Visitors: 63
Filed: Feb. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 47 F.3d 1165 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert J. SCHAD, Appellant, and Jose SCHAD, Plaintiff, v. John S. GRINALDS, Individually and as Headmaster of Woodberry Forest School, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-2225. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan.
More

47 F.3d 1165

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert J. SCHAD, Appellant,
and Jose SCHAD, Plaintiff,
v.
John S. GRINALDS, Individually and as Headmaster of
Woodberry Forest School, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-2225.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 6, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-804)

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Robert J. Schad, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders removing him from the action as next friend of his son and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 Indus trial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

2

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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