Filed: Aug. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1051 RANDOLPH CREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST TRANSIT, Successor in Interest, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05- cv-02872-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Crews, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1051 RANDOLPH CREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST TRANSIT, Successor in Interest, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05- cv-02872-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Crews, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1051
RANDOLPH CREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FIRST TRANSIT, Successor in Interest,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-
cv-02872-JFM)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Crews, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Crews seeks to appeal the dismissal of his
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 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 Crews seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 -