Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6161 CEDRIC L. WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. L. MASSEY; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; RANDALL LEE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-953-5-H3) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6161 CEDRIC L. WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. L. MASSEY; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; RANDALL LEE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-953-5-H3) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6161
CEDRIC L. WILDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
G. L. MASSEY; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS;
RANDALL LEE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-96-953-5-H3)
Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cedric L. Wilder, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing sever-
al of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) claims as frivolous but allowing
one claim to proceed. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory 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