Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Trent v. Commonwealth of VA, 98-2593 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2593 Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2593 JOHN J. “SWARTZ” TRENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-72-L) Submitted: November 3, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-2593



JOHN J. “SWARTZ” TRENT,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CA-98-72-L)


Submitted:   November 3, 1998          Decided:     November 13, 1998


Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John J. Trent, Appellant Pro Se. James Walter Hopper, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John J. “Swartz” Trent appeals the district court order dis-

missing that part of his complaint seeking monetary damages. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 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 deci-

sional 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