Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Overman v. Baker, 03-6564 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6564 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jun. 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6564 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; THEODIS BECK, Defendants - Appellees, and MARY STEVENS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-126-5-BO) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6564



JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR.,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JUANITA H. BAKER; THEODIS BECK,

                                           Defendants - Appellees,
          and


MARY STEVENS,

                                                           Defendant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-126-5-BO)


Submitted:   May 29, 2003                     Decided:   June 6, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Marvin Overman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John Marvin Overman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing two defendants from his civil rights action. 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 Overman 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

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