Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hudgins v. Mack, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael D. Hudgins. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order denying Hudgins' motion to vacate the summary dismissal of two defendants was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders. As the action remained pending against two other defendants in the district court, the order was not final, and the appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6815

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael D. Hudgins. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order denying Hudgins' motion to vacate the summary dismissal of two defendants was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders. As the action remained pending against two other defendants in the district court, the order was not final, and the appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Hudgins v. Mack, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael D. Hudgins. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order denying Hudgins' motion to vacate the summary dismissal of two defendants was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders. As the action remained pending against two other defendants in the district court, the order was not final, and the appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6815

    MICHAEL D. HUDGINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ALFRED MACK, M.D. D.O.C. Inmate; MICHAEL O.
    TWIGG,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    JON P. GALLEY, Managing Warden; GARY KNIGHT,
    Officer, C. O. II,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-05-422-BEL)

    Submitted: September 29, 2005

    Decided:

    October 11, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael D. Hudgins, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael D. Hudgins seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion to vacate the summary dismissal of two of
    the four Defendants named in his complaint.
    pending against the two other Defendants.

    The action remains

    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 order Hudgins 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
    the court and argument would not aide the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like