Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1311 RUBEN MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER, a division of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3415-3-17BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1311 RUBEN MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER, a division of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3415-3-17BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1311
RUBEN MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER, a division of
the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-3415-3-17BC)
Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ruben Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Barron Grier, III, GRIER LAW
FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying his
motion for default judgment. 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