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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6784 MICHAEL T. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARGARET MOORE, Director, District of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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6784 MICHAEL T. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARGARET MOORE, Director, District of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 B..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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