Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. Beshears, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert G. Moore v. Earl D. Beshears et al. The court dismissed Moore's appeal of a district court order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6423

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert G. Moore v. Earl D. Beshears et al. The court dismissed Moore's appeal of a district court order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Moore v. Beshears, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert G. Moore v. Earl D. Beshears et al. The court dismissed Moore's appeal of a district court order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory 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. 97-6423

    ROBERT G. MOORE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EARL D. BESHEARS, Warden; QUENSEY, P.A.; OFFICER PARKS; OFFICER ADAMS; OFFICER MARSHALL;
    LIEUTENANT SPROWL; OFFICER BALLARD; OFFICER
    GRADY; OFFICER BROMLEY; LIEUTENANT VANN;
    SERGEANT BARKER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
    (CA-96-79-WMN)
    Submitted:

    June 12, 1997

    Decided:

    June 18, 1997

    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert G. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert G. Moore appeals the district court order granting in
    part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in Moore's 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) action. 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