Filed: May 04, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6110 DANIEL LEO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. WOODARD; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS, Division of Health Services; DOCTOR LIGHTSEY; DOCTOR KYERMARTEN, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES B. HUNT, JR.; THEODIS BECK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-267-5-3-F) Submitted: April
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6110 DANIEL LEO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. WOODARD; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS, Division of Health Services; DOCTOR LIGHTSEY; DOCTOR KYERMARTEN, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES B. HUNT, JR.; THEODIS BECK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-267-5-3-F) Submitted: April 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6110
DANIEL LEO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. WOODARD; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COR-
RECTIONS, Division of Health Services; DOCTOR
LIGHTSEY; DOCTOR KYERMARTEN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.; THEODIS BECK,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-267-5-3-F)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Leo Williams appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing one of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2000) complaint. 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