Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Crisp v. NC Department Corr, 04-7131 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7131 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7131 TAURICE M. CRISP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DOCTOR BOWMAN; MR. MUNNS; DOCTOR SHODELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-04-343-5-FL) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismi
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7131



TAURICE M. CRISP,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
DOCTOR BOWMAN; MR. MUNNS; DOCTOR SHODELL,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (CA-04-343-5-FL)


Submitted:   September 16, 2004        Decided:   September 24, 2004


Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Taurice M. Crisp, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Taurice M. Crisp seeks to appeal the district court’s

order directing prison officials to deduct a percentage of his

monthly income from his prison account to pay the filing fee.   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 Crisp 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