Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Foley v. Harris, 96-6260 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6260 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6260 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HARRIS; SERGEANT SANTIAGO; MS. WOOD; SERGEANT STARKEY; LIEUTENANT REDMAN; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER THORNTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOKE; T. EVANS; L. M. SAUNDERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-150-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decid
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-6260



FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

SERGEANT HARRIS; SERGEANT SANTIAGO; MS. WOOD;
SERGEANT STARKEY; LIEUTENANT REDMAN; CORREC-
TIONAL OFFICER THORNTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
HOKE; T. EVANS; L. M. SAUNDERS,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-96-150-R)


Submitted:   June 20, 1996                   Decided:   July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals from the district court's show cause order.

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

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