Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mattison v. Brown, 96-6526 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6526 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6526 CALVIN R. MATTISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TONY BROWN; ROBERT CARRILES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-94-2610-9-6JC) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin R
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-6526



CALVIN R. MATTISON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

TONY BROWN; ROBERT CARRILES,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-94-2610-9-6JC)


Submitted:   October 3, 1996              Decided:   October 10, 1996


Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Calvin R. Mattison, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting Defen-

dants' motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part.

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