Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Parker, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Linwood Cola Parker of a district court order denying his motion to recuse or disqualify the district court judge. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a motion to recuse is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7577

    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    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Linwood Cola Parker of a district court order denying his motion to recuse or disqualify the district court judge. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a motion to recuse is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Parker, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Linwood Cola Parker of a district court order denying his motion to recuse or disqualify the district court judge. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a motion to recuse is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    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. 10-7577

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LINWOOD COLA PARKER, a/k/a Lenny,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:07-cr-00068-RBS-JEB-1)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2011

    Decided:

    May 16, 2011

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linwood Cola Parker, Appellant Pro Se.


    Gurney Wingate Grant,
    II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Darryl
    James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Linwood

    Cola

    Parker

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying his motion to recuse or disqualify.


    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    This

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral


    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

    The

    order Parker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an


    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    Accordingly, we
    We dispense with
    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    DISMISSED

    You might also like