Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Frizzelle v. Shortt, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order. The district court order dismissed some but not all of the defendants named in the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final order and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Frizzelle v. Shortt, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order. The district court order dismissed some but not all of the defendants named in the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final order and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6146

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order. The district court order dismissed some but not all of the defendants named in the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final order and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Frizzelle v. Shortt, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order. The district court order dismissed some but not all of the defendants named in the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final order and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6146

    JONATHAN RANDALL FRIZZELLE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EUGENE SHORTT, Sheriff; KIESTER DANIELS; DOCTOR MITCHELL; HALIFAX COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
    JUDGE SUGGS; JUDGE WELLON; JUDGE RAND; JUDGE
    MCCORMICK; HALIFAX COUNTY JAIL,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-95-1326-R)
    Submitted:

    June 20, 1996

    Decided:

    July 1, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan Randall Frizzelle, Appellant Pro Se.
    Teresa Rejent
    Warner, Jason Robert Davis, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR,
    Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing
    some, but not all, of the Defendants named in Appellant's 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (1988) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1988), and
    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

    You might also like