Filed: Sep. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6763 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. BUNFESS; SERGEANT BARELL; OFFICER DUNN; OFFICER CAMPBELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3712-DKC) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6763 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. BUNFESS; SERGEANT BARELL; OFFICER DUNN; OFFICER CAMPBELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3712-DKC) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6763
ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. BUNFESS; SERGEANT BARELL; OFFICER DUNN;
OFFICER CAMPBELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
97-3712-DKC)
Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court order denying his motion
to compel discovery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise juris-
diction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and cer-
tain 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