Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Watkins v. Moore, 96-6784 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6784 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6784 MICHAEL T. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARGARET MOORE, Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections; DICK TRODDEN, Supervisor, Commonwealth Attorney; J. J. CONAHAN, Arlington Police, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-971) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-6784



MICHAEL T. WATKINS,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MARGARET MOORE, Director, District of Columbia
Department of Corrections; DICK TRODDEN,
Supervisor, Commonwealth Attorney; J. J.
CONAHAN, Arlington Police,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-971)


Submitted:   July 23, 1996                 Decided:   August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael T. Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's memorandum order

directing Appellant to particularize his complaint. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-

able. 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