Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bagley v. State of SC, 96-6436 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6436 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6436 BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT WARD, Warden of the Evans Correctional Institution; WILLIAM GUNN, Director of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-487-2-8AJ) Submitted: October 17, 1
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-6436



BERNARD BAGLEY,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT WARD, Warden
of the Evans Correctional Institution; WILLIAM
GUNN, Director of South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Services,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-96-487-2-8AJ)


Submitted:   October 17, 1996             Decided:   October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Bagley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order directing

service upon the Respondents. 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

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); 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