Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roger Berry v. Beverly Perdue, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision dismissing Roger Berry's appeal of a district court order. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Berry's motion to compel legal documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7003

    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    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision dismissing Roger Berry's appeal of a district court order. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Berry's motion to compel legal documents.

    Copyright:

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

    Roger Berry v. Beverly Perdue, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision dismissing Roger Berry's appeal of a district court order. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Berry's motion to compel legal documents.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 11-7003

    ROGER CARL BERRY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE; ALVIN W. KELLER; MARY S. POLLARD; KEN
    BUTLER; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, North Carolina Prisoner Legal
    Services,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:10-ct-03154-FL)

    Submitted:

    February 16, 2012

    Decided:

    February 21, 2012

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Roger Carl Berry, Appellant Pro Se.


    Assistant
    Attorney
    General,
    Raleigh,
    Appellees.

    Elizabeth F. Parsons,
    North
    Carolina,
    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Roger Carl Berry seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his claims against four defendants.

    This court

    may

    28

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    orders,

    U.S.C.

    1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,


    28

    U.S.C.

    1292

    (2006);

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    54(b);

    Cohen

    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

    v.
    The

    order Berry seeks to appeal is neither a final order * nor an


    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    We deny Berrys

    motion

    to

    compel

    legal

    documents.

    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

    Although the order dismissed claims against certain


    defendants, it was not certified as final under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b).

    You might also like