Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6139 DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees, and OLIVIA BENNETT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6139 DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees, and OLIVIA BENNETT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6139
DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OLIVIA BENNETT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F)
Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dorman Mack Chandler appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing certain defendants from his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(1994). 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 inter-
locutory 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