Filed: Dec. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7547 WHEELER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 96-1427-WMN) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wheeler Williams, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7547 WHEELER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 96-1427-WMN) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wheeler Williams, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7547
WHEELER WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-
96-1427-WMN)
Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wheeler Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying as
moot his motion in opposition to Appellee's motion for an extension
of time. 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 interlocu-
tory 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