Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McNeill v. Vanburen, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of James C. McNeill v. several defendants. The district court had dismissed McNeill's claims against some defendants but allowed the action to continue against other defendants. The appellate court finds that the district court's order was not final and not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-06-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6565

    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 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of James C. McNeill v. several defendants. The district court had dismissed McNeill's claims against some defendants but allowed the action to continue against other defendants. The appellate court finds that the district court's order was not final and not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    McNeill v. Vanburen, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of James C. McNeill v. several defendants. The district court had dismissed McNeill's claims against some defendants but allowed the action to continue against other defendants. The appellate court finds that the district court's order was not final and not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appellate court dismisses 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6565

    JAMES C. MCNEILL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DENNIS VANBUREN, Second Shift Lieutenant;
    BENJAMIN LEA, Second Shift Sergeant; SHARON
    SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN; MARY WATSON,
    RN; CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROYSTER, Second Shift
    Correctional Officer; HOWARD CRABTREE, Second
    Shift Correctional Officer; CURTIS MAGNUM,
    Second Shift Correctional Officer; ASHANTI
    WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer;
    JAMES WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional
    Officer; NORWOOD, Second Shift Correctional
    Officer;
    LINDA
    MORGAN,
    Third
    Shift
    Correctional Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-120-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    June 12, 2003

    Decided:

    June 19, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*

    This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to


    28 U.S.C. 46(d) (2000).

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant


    Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James
    district

    C.

    McNeill,

    courts

    order

    North

    Carolina

    dismissing

    his

    inmate,

    claims

    appeals

    against

    the

    several

    defendants on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000),


    but maintaining the action as to other 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 appealed from 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
    3

    You might also like