Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Directv Incorporated v. Jones, 05-1361 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1361 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1361 DIRECTV INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAY JONES, Defendant - Appellant, and RON CAROLINA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3542-AW) Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: September 16, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay Jone
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-1361



DIRECTV INCORPORATED,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAY JONES,

                                              Defendant - Appellant,

          and


RON CAROLINA,

                                                           Defendant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-3542-AW)


Submitted:   August 10, 2005            Decided:   September 16, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jay Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Robert Rubin, SONNENSCHEIN,
NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Jay Jones appeals the district court clerk’s order of

default.   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 Jones 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