Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robert Bartlett, Sr. v. Paula Smith, 19-6475 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6475 Visitors: 36
Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6475 ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAULA SMITH; BRAD PERRITT; LARRY THOMPSON; JAMESE SMITH; DIEDRE HARRELSON; PATSY CHAVIS; NURSE PALMER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03124-FL) Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019 Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circui
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6475


ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR.,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

PAULA SMITH; BRAD PERRITT; LARRY THOMPSON; JAMESE SMITH;
DIEDRE HARRELSON; PATSY CHAVIS; NURSE PALMER,

                     Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03124-FL)


Submitted: August 20, 2019                                        Decided: August 23, 2019


Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

some, but not all, of his claims in his civil action. 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 Bartlett 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED




                                              2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer