Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tompkins v. Department of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The court dismissed Tompkins' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The orders he sought to appeal were not final orders that resolve all claims for all parties, nor were they appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As some claims remained pending in the district court, the orders were not fully resolved and not subject to appeal. Tompkins' motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6875

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court dismissed Tompkins' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The orders he sought to appeal were not final orders that resolve all claims for all parties, nor were they appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As some claims remained pending in the district court, the orders were not fully resolved and not subject to appeal. Tompkins' motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Tompkins v. Department of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court dismissed Tompkins' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The orders he sought to appeal were not final orders that resolve all claims for all parties, nor were they appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As some claims remained pending in the district court, the orders were not fully resolved and not subject to appeal. Tompkins' motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6875

    STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; T. R. CARROLL; CHRIS BATTEN; OFFICER
    STEWART; SERGEANT DIGGS; LIEUTENANT CRUMPLER; CAPTAIN THOMPSON;
    DAVID MITCHELL; SUSAN BELL; JOHN DOE, Mailroom; JANE DOE,
    Mailroom; JOHN GARLAND; VICTORIA SELLERS; KEVIN B. BENFIELD;
    EDWARD K. OSTEEN; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer; DAVID STAMEY;
    STEPHEN E. DUNN; JOHNNY W. TAYLOR, III; CARLA OKONEK-SMITH;
    HATTIE B. PIMPONG; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; SERGEANT HERRING;
    LIEUTENANT VINSON; LIEUTENANT WEBSTER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:07-ct-03152-H)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2008

    Decided:

    September 23, 2008

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.


    Lisa Yvette Harper,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stuart

    Wayne

    Tompkins

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts* March 17, 2008, order denying relief on some but not all
    of the claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint and
    the courts June 4, 2008, order denying several motions filed by
    Tompkins.

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and


    collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
    Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

    The

    orders Tompkins seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor


    appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    appointment of counsel is denied.

    Accordingly, we

    Tompkins motion for

    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

    Tompkins filed this action in the Eastern District of North


    Carolina. After the district court issued the orders that are the
    subject of this appeal, the case was transferred to the Western
    District of North Carolina where it is still pending.
    2

    You might also like