Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Watford v. House, Corr Off, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Kelvin Watford of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order had been vacated on Watford's motion for reconsideration, meaning there was no final or appealable order for the appeals court to consider.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Watford v. House, Corr Off, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Kelvin Watford of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order had been vacated on Watford's motion for reconsideration, meaning there was no final or appealable order for the appeals court to consider.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6787

    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 summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Kelvin Watford of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order had been vacated on Watford's motion for reconsideration, meaning there was no final or appealable order for the appeals court to consider.

    Copyright:

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

    Watford v. House, Corr Off, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Kelvin Watford of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order had been vacated on Watford's motion for reconsideration, meaning there was no final or appealable order for the appeals court to consider.

    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. 05-6787

    KELVIN WATFORD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOUSE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-04-1526-1)

    Submitted:

    October 18, 2005

    Decided:

    October 20, 2005

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kelvin Watford, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kelvin Watford seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    This

    court may exercise jurisdiction only over a final order, 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 Watford seeks to

    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or


    collateral order because it has been vacated by the district court
    on Watfords motion for reconsideration. See Watford v. House, No.
    CA-04-1526-1 (E.D. Va. June 1, 2005).
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the

    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