Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harrison v. Floyd, 95-6012 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6012 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6012 DARROL HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS FLOYD, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHNNY DANIELS, Special Drug Enforcement Agent; JOHN DOE #I, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agents, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3004-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-6012



DARROL HARRISON,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

DENNIS FLOYD, Special Drug Enforcement Agent;
JOHNNY DANIELS, Special Drug Enforcement
Agent; JOHN DOE #I, Director of the Drug
Enforcement Agents,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-3004-2-18AJ)


Submitted:   November 28, 1995            Decided:   January 5, 1996

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrol Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's report and rec-

ommendation in his Bivens* 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. § 1291

(1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus-
trial Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order.

     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




     *
       Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 
403 U.S. 388
 (1971).

                                2

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