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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6564 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; THEODIS BECK,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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6564 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; THEODIS BECK,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 unpublis..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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