Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Townsend v. Baskerville, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case brought by Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend. The district court had dismissed some claims and defendants in the case, but had not dismissed all parties and claims. The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7514

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case brought by Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend. The district court had dismissed some claims and defendants in the case, but had not dismissed all parties and claims. The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit 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
    5 views3 pages

    Townsend v. Baskerville, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case brought by Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend. The district court had dismissed some claims and defendants in the case, but had not dismissed all parties and claims. The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7514

    BRUCE E. KENNEY; MILTON TOWNSEND,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    and
    JAMES W. TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden; THOMAS F. NEUMAYER;
    DOROTHY
    COLLINS,
    Chief,
    Operations
    of
    Classification & Records Unit; SHANDA DAWKINS,
    Senior Counselor/Program Supervisor; P.E.
    ANDERSON, Corporal, Correctional Officer; P.M.
    HENICK, Regional Ombudsman; SARGEANT LEE;
    OFFICER WEST, CAPTAIN SCOTT; OFFICER MULLINS;
    LIEUTENANT BEST; MIKE MORLEY, Chaplain,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-549)

    Submitted:

    August 25, 2005

    Decided:

    August 30, 2005

    Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bruce E. Kenney, Milton Townsend, Appellants Pro Se. Susan Foster


    Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend seek to appeal the
    district courts order dismissing several claims and defendants in
    their 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action.
    all parties and claims.
    over

    final

    orders,

    28

    The order did not dismiss

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only


    U.S.C.

    1291

    (2000),

    and

    certain

    interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000).

    See

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337


    U.S. 541 (1949).

    The order Kenney and Townsend seek 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

    - 3 -

    You might also like