Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Perry v. Allen, 96-6340 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6340 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6340 ROY LEE PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE F. ALLEN, Governor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-11-M) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Lee Perry, Appell
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-6340



ROY LEE PERRY,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

GEORGE F. ALLEN, Governor,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-11-M)


Submitted:   July 23, 1996                 Decided:   August 5, 1996


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roy Lee Perry, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his mo-

tion for clarification. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-

tion 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