Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7583 CODY WAYNE FOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. RIVERA; SGT. JONES; SGT. SIMPSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03087-BO) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Co
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7583 CODY WAYNE FOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. RIVERA; SGT. JONES; SGT. SIMPSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03087-BO) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cod..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7583
CODY WAYNE FOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. RIVERA; SGT. JONES; SGT. SIMPSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03087-BO)
Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cody Wayne Foy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cody Wayne Foy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to
compel discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
The order Foy 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