Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

George W. Gantt v. Lieutenant Pressbury Lieutenant Grant Lieutenant Locklear Sergeant Jones Sergeant Kent, 95-6788 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6788 Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 03, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 62 F.3d 1414 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. George W. GANTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant PRESSBURY; Lieutenant Grant; Lieutenant Locklear; Sergeant Jones; Sergeant Kent, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-6788. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted
More

62 F.3d 1414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
George W. GANTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lieutenant PRESSBURY; Lieutenant Grant; Lieutenant
Locklear; Sergeant Jones; Sergeant Kent,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6788.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 27, 1995.
Decided: Aug. 3, 1995.

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to compel discovery, his supplemental motion to compel discovery, and his motion for a change of venue, and granting Appellees' motion for a protective order. 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