Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marable v. Angelone, 02-6838 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6838 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6838 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STU TAYLOR, Assistant Warden; SERGEANT RITCHIE, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia - Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: Augus
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-6838



WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR.,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


STU   TAYLOR,   Assistant      Warden;   SERGEANT
RITCHIE,

                                               Defendants - Appellees,

          and


RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia -
Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor,

                                                            Defendants.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM)


Submitted:   August 15, 2002                 Decided:   August 22, 2002


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Irvin Marable, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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




PER CURIAM:

     William Irvin Marable, Sr., appeals district court’s order

granting summary judgment.    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 also deny the

pending motions to appoint counsel. 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

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