Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Corrigan v. Carmack, 4th Cir. (2000)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Mark Corrigan in a § 1983 case. The court granted summary judgment to one but not all defendants. The appeals court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, dealing with fewer than all parties, and was therefore interlocutory and not appealable. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Corrigan v. Carmack, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Mark Corrigan in a § 1983 case. The court granted summary judgment to one but not all defendants. The appeals court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, dealing with fewer than all parties, and was therefore interlocutory and not appealable. The appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6433

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Mark Corrigan in a § 1983 case. The court granted summary judgment to one but not all defendants. The appeals court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, dealing with fewer than all parties, and was therefore interlocutory and not appealable. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Corrigan v. Carmack, 4th Cir. (2000)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Mark Corrigan in a § 1983 case. The court granted summary judgment to one but not all defendants. The appeals court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, dealing with fewer than all parties, and was therefore interlocutory and not appealable. The appeal was dismissed.

    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. 00-6433

    MARK CORRIGAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DIANIA CARMACK,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; PITT
    COUNTY;
    WILSON
    COUNTY;
    SARGEANT
    BAILEY;
    OFFICER BARNS; HOWARD ADAMS,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR)

    Submitted:

    July 20, 2000

    Decided:

    August 1, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se.
    Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr.,
    PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Corrigan appeals the district courts order granting
    summary judgment in favor of one, but not all, Defendants named in
    Corrigans action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000).

    We

    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is


    not appealable.

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

    final orders, see 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.

    See 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1994); 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.

    See Robinson v.

    Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982).
    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