U.S. v. VANDIVERE, 15-7427. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20151124172
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . James Dow Vandivere seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his pro se motion for summary judgment in the civil commitment proceedings against him. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . James Dow Vandivere seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his pro se motion for summary judgment in the civil commitment proceedings against him. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
James Dow Vandivere seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his pro se motion for summary judgment in the civil commitment proceedings against him. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Vandivere seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
