Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lee Roy Smith. The district court had dismissed Smith's claims against all defendants except one. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6135

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lee Roy Smith. The district court had dismissed Smith's claims against all defendants except one. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2004)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lee Roy Smith. The district court had dismissed Smith's claims against all defendants except one. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-6135

    LEE ROY SMITH,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICKEY E. RAY, Warden, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; J. D. CASTILLO, Health
    Services Administrator, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JOSE A. SERANNO, M.D.
    and Clinical Director of Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JUAN F. CARMONA, JR.,
    Lieutenant, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; LISA MORGAN-JOHNSON,
    Counselor, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; JACK FOX, Unit
    Manager, Federal Correctional
    Institution-Edgefield; DOUGLAS HOLFORD,
    Contracted Orthopedic Specialist, Federal
    Correctional Institution-Edgefield,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-02-2627-8-18AJ)

    Submitted:

    June 24, 2004

    Decided:

    June 30, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lee Roy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; David Austin
    Brown, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Lee Roy Smith seeks to appeal the district courts order
    dismissing his claims against all defendants except one.

    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 Smith 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 aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like