Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

19-2013 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-2013 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 92 F.3d 1184 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael T. WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret MOORE, Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections; Dick Trodden, Supervisor, Commonwealth Attorney; J.J. Conahan, Arlington Police, Defendants-Appellees. No.
More

92 F.3d 1184

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael T. WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Margaret MOORE, Director, District of Columbia Department of
Corrections; Dick Trodden, Supervisor,
Commonwealth Attorney; J.J. Conahan,
Arlington Police, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6784.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 23, 1996.
Decided: August 6, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-971)

Michael T. Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's memorandum order directing Appellant to particularize his complaint. 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 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 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