Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ronsdorf v. Chase Manhattan Bk, 97-1226 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1226 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1226 ALFRED RONSDORF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95- 2729-L) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Ronsdorf, Appellant Pro Se. Davi
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 97-1226



ALFRED RONSDORF,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A.,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-
2729-L)


Submitted:   July 24, 1997                 Decided:   August 6, 1997


Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alfred Ronsdorf, Appellant Pro Se. David Bart Goldstein, DANEKER,
MCINTIRE, DAVIS, SCHUMM, PRINCE & GOLDSTEIN, P.C., Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals the district court's order expressing its

intention to retain possession of contested funds pending the dis-

covery of a more appropriate repository and requesting a status

report. 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.

     As a result, we grant the Appellee's motion and dismiss the
appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials 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