Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Locust v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Elder Deforrorrora Locust. The district court had granted an extension of time for defendants to file an answer. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the order granting an extension of time was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7207

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Elder Deforrorrora Locust. The district court had granted an extension of time for defendants to file an answer. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the order granting an extension of time was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Locust v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1999)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Elder Deforrorrora Locust. The district court had granted an extension of time for defendants to file an answer. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the order granting an extension of time was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court granted the motion to dismiss 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-7207

    ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. BILLY SMITH, Sheriff,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    JAMES B. FRENCH; JIM HUNT, Governor; MACK
    JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; LIEUTENANT CANNADY; L. M. PIKE, Chaplin; JOSEPH E. SETZER,
    JR.; LENOIR COUNTY; DAL F. WOOTEN, III,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-376-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 1999

    Decided:

    December 29, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Elder Deforrorrora Locust, Appellant Pro Se. G. Christopher Olson,


    WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Elder Deforrorrora Locust appeals from the district courts
    order granting an extension of time for Defendants to file an
    answer. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
    order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
    over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders, see 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.


    Therefore, we grant W. Billy Smiths motion to 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