Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7350 JAMES O. BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY LOU ROGERS, Programs Director III; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPO- RATED; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS; JIM HUNT, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-781) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: Ja
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7350 JAMES O. BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY LOU ROGERS, Programs Director III; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPO- RATED; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS; JIM HUNT, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-781) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: Jan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7350
JAMES O. BRADLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY LOU ROGERS, Programs Director III; NORTH
CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPO-
RATED; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC-
TIONS; JIM HUNT, Governor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (CA-94-781)
Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James O. Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. William Dale Talbert, Assis-
tant Attorney General, David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gordon Claiborne Woodruff,
Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing all
but one of the Defendants in this 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. 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