Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6591 ARNOLD J. WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANG ROGERS, Classification Officer; OFFICER NUNALLY, Classification Officer; V. M. MOSS, Supervisor, Mental Health, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-88-AM) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6591 ARNOLD J. WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANG ROGERS, Classification Officer; OFFICER NUNALLY, Classification Officer; V. M. MOSS, Supervisor, Mental Health, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-88-AM) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6591
ARNOLD J. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LANG ROGERS, Classification Officer; OFFICER
NUNALLY, Classification Officer; V. M. MOSS,
Supervisor, Mental Health,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-88-AM)
Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnold J. White, Appellant Pro Se. Anton Joseph Stelly, THOMPSON,
SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia; James Thomas Moore,
III, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arnold J. White appeals from an order dismissing one of the
claims and one of the Defendants from his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
Supp. 1999) action and ordering the remaining two Defendants to
file responsive pleadings. 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 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