Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6081 LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; DURANKO, S.I.S. Technician; D. SHAW, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM PERSONNEL; D. YOST, I.S.O., Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00066-JPB-JSK) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6081 LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; DURANKO, S.I.S. Technician; D. SHAW, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM PERSONNEL; D. YOST, I.S.O., Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00066-JPB-JSK) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KIN..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6081
LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; DURANKO, S.I.S. Technician;
D. SHAW, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM PERSONNEL; D. YOST,
I.S.O.,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00066-JPB-JSK)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Arnold Young seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying his motion for entry of default judgment. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order Young 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