Filed: Jul. 16, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6422 DANTE LINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S SERVICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; DAVID CHEUVRONT, II, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees, and JEFFREY SILK, Special Agent; ROBERT STANTON, Lieutenant, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 02-3798-8-DKC) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6422 DANTE LINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S SERVICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; DAVID CHEUVRONT, II, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees, and JEFFREY SILK, Special Agent; ROBERT STANTON, Lieutenant, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 02-3798-8-DKC) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6422
DANTE LINTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S SERVICE; DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; DAVID CHEUVRONT,
II, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JEFFREY SILK, Special Agent; ROBERT STANTON,
Lieutenant,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
02-3798-8-DKC)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dante Linton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dante Linton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting in part and denying in part his motion to amend his
complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order Linton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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