Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Briggs v. City of Norfolk, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Donna Briggs of a district court order that dismissed some but not all parties and claims in her civil action. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-2478

    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 a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Donna Briggs of a district court order that dismissed some but not all parties and claims in her civil action. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Briggs v. City of Norfolk, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Donna Briggs of a district court order that dismissed some but not all parties and claims in her civil action. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-2478

    DONNA M. BRIGGS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF NORFOLK, a municipal corporation,
    organized under the laws of the Commonwealth
    of Virginia; PAUL D. FRAIM, individually and
    officially in his capacity as Mayor of
    Norfolk; KAMALA HALLGREN LANNETTI, individually and officially as the Former Assistant
    Attorney for the City of Norfolk; HAROLD P.
    JUREN, individually and officially as the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Norfolk;
    MELVIN HIGH, individually and officially as
    the Chief of Police for the City of Norfolk;
    JAMES BROWNLIE, individually and officially as
    a Lieutenant on the Norfolk Police Force;
    ALLEN BOSTJANCIC, individually and officially
    as a Police Officer for the City of Norfolk;
    MARK RAILLING, individually and officially as
    a Police Officer for the City of Norfolk;
    LEONARD MERRITT, individually,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
    Movant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
    (CA-98-288-2)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 1999

    Decided:

    June 24, 1999

    Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Donna M. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Brody Rashkind, Krista Ann
    Griffith, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia;
    Leonard Merritt, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district courts order that dismissed
    some, but not all, parties and claims in her civil action.

    We dis-

    miss 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

    You might also like