Filed: Jul. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1734 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGE HENDERSON; WOODROW P. LIPSCOMB, Attor- ney; WILLIAM SUGG, Judge; CHARLES MCCORMICK, Judge; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998 Before NI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1734 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGE HENDERSON; WOODROW P. LIPSCOMB, Attor- ney; WILLIAM SUGG, Judge; CHARLES MCCORMICK, Judge; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998 Before NIE..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1734
MICHAEL D. WILKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JUDGE HENDERSON; WOODROW P. LIPSCOMB, Attor-
ney; WILLIAM SUGG, Judge; CHARLES MCCORMICK,
Judge; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-899)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Anton Joseph Stelly, William
S. Smithers, Jr., THOMPSON, SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond,
Virginia; Richard Cullen, Gregory E. Lucyk, Claude Alexander Allen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting the mo-
tions to dismiss filed by Defendants Lipscomb, Sugg, McCormick, and
Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the order did not dispose of all the
defendants in the action. 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