Filed: Feb. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7605 KALVIN MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR ABBASI; Medical Doctor; MS. STAZEWSKI, Medical Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-517-AM) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7605 KALVIN MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR ABBASI; Medical Doctor; MS. STAZEWSKI, Medical Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-517-AM) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7605
KALVIN MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR ABBASI; Medical Doctor; MS. STAZEWSKI,
Medical Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-02-517-AM)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kalvin Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS &
MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kalvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s
adverse grant of summary judgment and entry of judgment in favor of
Dr. Abbasi in Marshall’s action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000). 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 Marshall 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 deny Marshall’s
motion for appointment of counsel because this appeal presents no
complex or substantial issue of law. 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 -