Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yarborough v. Lofton, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Danny Lamont Yarborough. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order affirming the denial of Yarborough's discovery motion was not a final appealable order, but rather an interlocutory order that is not appealable. The court concluded the order was not final under 28 U.S.C. 1291 nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6753

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Danny Lamont Yarborough. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order affirming the denial of Yarborough's discovery motion was not a final appealable order, but rather an interlocutory order that is not appealable. The court concluded the order was not final under 28 U.S.C. 1291 nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Yarborough v. Lofton, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Danny Lamont Yarborough. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order affirming the denial of Yarborough's discovery motion was not a final appealable order, but rather an interlocutory order that is not appealable. The court concluded the order was not final under 28 U.S.C. 1291 nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it dismissed the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-6753

    DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH LOFTON; RALPH S. BRITT; WILLIAM
    JENNETTE; S. D. STEWART; SERGEANT WOOTEN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-95-707-5-H)
    Submitted:

    September 20, 1996

    Decided:

    October 2, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danny Lamont Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley,
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming the
    magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for discovery.
    We dismiss 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