Filed: May 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6430 MICHAEL JACKSON POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EUGENE M. NUTH; JOHN R. ALLISON, Captain; WAYNE D. HARBIN; RUSSELL M. HUDSON; DONALD R. WILLIAMS; HOWARD C. HEISS, III; MISTER HOEY; MISTER FORD; JOHN DOE, Unidentified Baltimore County Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05- 170-RWT) Subm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6430 MICHAEL JACKSON POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EUGENE M. NUTH; JOHN R. ALLISON, Captain; WAYNE D. HARBIN; RUSSELL M. HUDSON; DONALD R. WILLIAMS; HOWARD C. HEISS, III; MISTER HOEY; MISTER FORD; JOHN DOE, Unidentified Baltimore County Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05- 170-RWT) Submi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6430
MICHAEL JACKSON POWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EUGENE M. NUTH; JOHN R. ALLISON, Captain;
WAYNE D. HARBIN; RUSSELL M. HUDSON; DONALD R.
WILLIAMS; HOWARD C. HEISS, III; MISTER HOEY;
MISTER FORD; JOHN DOE, Unidentified Baltimore
County Police Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05-
170-RWT)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Jackson Powell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Jackson Powell seeks to appeal the district
courts’ order granting Powell’s motion to reopen his twenty-eight
year old action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) but staying the
action pending receipt from the Baltimore County Office of Law of
a status report regarding record retention and the viability of the
Defendants.
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 Powell 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 -