Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    65 views2 pages
    This document summarizes three appeals by Cornelius Tucker Jr. of a magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss Tucker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders of the magistrate judge were not final orders and were not appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court denies Tucker's motions to vacate the order consolidating the three appeals and dispenses with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 8 F.3d 820 Docket: 93-6420

    Original Title

    Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Patricia Beck Danny Safrit, Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. L. Todd Burke, Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Susan Frye Captain Wallace, 8 F.3d 820, 4th Cir. (1993)

    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 three appeals by Cornelius Tucker Jr. of a magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss Tucker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders of the magistrate judge were not final orders and were not appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court denies Tucker's motions to vacate the order consolidating the three appeals and dispenses with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes three appeals by Cornelius Tucker Jr. of a magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss Tucker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders of the magistrate judge were not final orders and were not appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court denies Tucker's motions to vacate the order consolidating the three appeals and dispenses with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    8 F.

    3d 820

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Patricia BECK; Danny Safrit, Defendants-Appellees.
    Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    L. Todd BURKE, Defendant-Appellee.
    Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Susan FRYE; Captain Wallace, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 93-6420, 93-6421, 93-6496.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 27, 1993.
    Decided: October 22, 1993.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
    North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-92-677-6, MISC-93-13-6, CA-92-678)
    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    William McBlief, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North
    Carolina; Allan R. Gitter, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    M.D.N.C.
    DISMISSED.

    Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,


    Senior Circuit Judge.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's recommendations


    that his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaints be dismissed. We dismiss the
    appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. See 28
    U.S.C.s 636(b)(1) (1988). This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
    28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial
    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final
    orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We deny Tucker's motions to vacate


    this Court's order consolidating these appeals. 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