Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7014 REXFORD GARLAND CASSIDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. LAWSON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-37) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rexford Garland Cas
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7014 REXFORD GARLAND CASSIDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. LAWSON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-37) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rexford Garland Cass..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7014
REXFORD GARLAND CASSIDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. LAWSON, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-37)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rexford Garland Cassidy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's dismissal of his Com-
plaint without prejudice for failure to particularize his claims.
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 Industrial 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
2