Filed: Aug. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6533 LEO RITES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; COMMISSIONER SONDERVAN; MAJOR LINEBURG, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; HANK MUSK, Psychologist; JOHN SWIVEL, Case Management Specialist; SERGEANT ROBINSON, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Cou
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6533 LEO RITES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; COMMISSIONER SONDERVAN; MAJOR LINEBURG, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; HANK MUSK, Psychologist; JOHN SWIVEL, Case Management Specialist; SERGEANT ROBINSON, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Cour..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6533
LEO RITES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES PEGUESE,
Warden, Maryland House of Corrections;
COMMISSIONER SONDERVAN; MAJOR LINEBURG, former
Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander;
HANK MUSK, Psychologist; JOHN SWIVEL, Case
Management Specialist; SERGEANT ROBINSON,
Maryland House of Corrections B Building
Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-
2596-AMD)
Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 2, 2004
Before SHEDD and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leo Rites, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leo Rites seeks to appeal the district court’s order
directing an answer to Rites’ complaint, among other things. 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 Rites 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 -