Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Holland v. Hall, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Norman Holland v. various defendants. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order dismissing all but one defendant was not a final, appealable order. Interlocutory orders are generally not appealable, and this order was neither final nor fell under an exception. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6400

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Norman Holland v. various defendants. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order dismissing all but one defendant was not a final, appealable order. Interlocutory orders are generally not appealable, and this order was neither final nor fell under an exception. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Holland v. Hall, 4th Cir. (1998)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Norman Holland v. various defendants. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order dismissing all but one defendant was not a final, appealable order. Interlocutory orders are generally not appealable, and this order was neither final nor fell under an exception. The appeals court therefore 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-6400

    NORMAN HOLLAND,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MILTON J. HALL, Deputy Sheriff, N.T.S.;
    GREGORY A. TATE, Deputy Sheriff, N.T.S.; L.
    TYLER, Deputy Sheriff; SHERIFF JONES, All of
    the above named defendants sued in their individual capacity; SOMERSET COUNTY; BOARD OF
    COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SOMERSET COUNTY; JOHN
    DOE; RICHARD ROE; OFFICER TYLER, #3205; D.
    WEBB, Deputy, #2606; P. PRUITT, Sergeant
    #6102; MICHELLE TAYLOR; KELLY GALYER, TFC; G.
    TATE, TFC - Officer in Charge; DANIEL THOMAS,
    Sergeant TFC; NOLEN, TFC-K-9; R. KLEBON,
    TFC-V-4; LARRY TOLLIVER, Colonel,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-299-PJM)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 1998

    Decided:

    September 17, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Norman Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Kilty McSherry, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland; Richard
    M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Norman

    Holland

    appeals

    from

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint as to


    all but one of the named Defendants. 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
    (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 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.
    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
    2

    You might also like