Filed: Jul. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1397 RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YNEZ OLSHAUSEN; MARY ELLEN MCDONALD; PETER GORMAN; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE OF NC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1397 RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YNEZ OLSHAUSEN; MARY ELLEN MCDONALD; PETER GORMAN; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE OF NC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1397
RANDY L. THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
YNEZ OLSHAUSEN; MARY ELLEN MCDONALD; PETER
GORMAN; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE
DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE OF
NC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Weston Johnson, HELMS,
MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Richard Harcourt
Fulton, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Thomas J. Ziko, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order transferring this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action to a
particular district court judge. 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 Thomas 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 -