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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1226 ALFRED RONSDORF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1226 ALFRED RONSDORF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. David..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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