Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court order dismissing Curtis Dale Richardson's appeal in a civil rights case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order dismissing most but not all defendants was not a final judgment. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-11-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7099

    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 a court order dismissing Curtis Dale Richardson's appeal in a civil rights case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order dismissing most but not all defendants was not a final judgment. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Richardson v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order dismissing Curtis Dale Richardson's appeal in a civil rights case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order dismissing most but not all defendants was not a final judgment. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7099

    CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PAULA THOMAS, Judge; RODNEY PEEPLES, Judge;
    CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General; JIM HODGES,
    Governor;
    WILLIE
    EAGLETON,
    Warden;
    GARY
    MAYNARD, Director; HARRY MCDOWELL, Magistrate;
    GREGORY HEMBRE, Solicitor; GEORGE DEBUSK,
    Assistant Solicitor; JAMES HARRIS, Loris
    Police Department; OFFICER PAGE, Loris Police
    Department; THOMAS W. FLOYD; JACK FLOM; STATE
    OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LORIS, SOUTH CAROLINA
    POLICE
    DEPARTMENT;
    HORRY
    COUNTY,
    SOUTH
    CAROLINA; MARSHALL RUSSELL, Chief, Loris
    Police
    Department;
    MAYOR,
    Loris,
    South
    Carolina,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CA-01-2553-1)

    Submitted:

    November 7, 2002

    Decided:

    November 13, 2002

    Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Curtis Dale Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000), claim against all but
    two Defendants.

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

    final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory


    and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
    The order Richardson 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 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