Filed: May 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7879 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF OF GILES COUNTY; SHERIFF’S DEPT. PERSONNEL; SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES OF GILES COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-547-7) Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismiss
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7879 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF OF GILES COUNTY; SHERIFF’S DEPT. PERSONNEL; SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES OF GILES COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-547-7) Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismisse..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7879
RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF OF GILES COUNTY; SHERIFF’S DEPT.
PERSONNEL; SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES OF GILES COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-547-7)
Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr.,
GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Victor Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting a motion to dismiss as to several of the claims in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint but denying the motion as to
other claims. 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 Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
Harris’s motion for a continuance, and 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 -