Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Franklin E. Dennison v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 94-7211 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7211 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 19, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 46 F.3d 1123 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Franklin E. DENNISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-7211. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

46 F.3d 1123

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Franklin E. DENNISON, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents--Appellees.

No. 94-7211.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 13, 1994.
Decided Jan. 19, 1995.

Franklin E. Dennison, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's denial of Appellant's motion to show cause. 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 Indus. 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and 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