Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Barnett v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his case in abeyance. However, the court may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this order denying the motion to hold the case in abeyance was not. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Barnett v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his case in abeyance. However, the court may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this order denying the motion to hold the case in abeyance was not. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7205

    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 ruling dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his case in abeyance. However, the court may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this order denying the motion to hold the case in abeyance was not. Therefore, 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
    8 views2 pages

    Barnett v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his case in abeyance. However, the court may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this order denying the motion to hold the case in abeyance was not. Therefore, 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. 02-7205

    ANTHONY FITZGERALD BARNETT,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    J. C. WILSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District


    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    District Judge. (CA-02-483)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2002

    Court for the Middle


    James A. Beaty, Jr.,

    Decided:

    December 20, 2002

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett, Appellant Pro Se.


    Clarence Joe
    DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony

    Fitzgerald

    Barnett

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts denial of his motion to hold his case in abeyance.

    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 Barnett seeks to

    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or


    collateral

    order.

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    certificate

    of

    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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