Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1990. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed all defendants except one in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the order was not a final order resolving all issues for all parties, it was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had also not directed entry of final judgment for particular claims or parties under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order was also not appealable under any other statutes or as a collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1990. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed all defendants except one in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the order was not a final order resolving all issues for all parties, it was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had also not directed entry of final judgment for particular claims or parties under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order was also not appealable under any other statutes or as a collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-01-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 894 F.2d 401 Docket: 89-7753

    Original Title

    David Harrell v. City of Newport News City Counsel Jessie Rattley, Mayor Joe Frank, Vice Mayor Seventh Judiciary Judge Smith Judge Bateman Judge Curran Judge Stephens Willard Robinson, Commonwealth's Attorney Clay Hester, Sheriff Thomas W. Carpenter, Attorney, 894 F.2d 401, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1990. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed all defendants except one in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the order was not a final order resolving all issues for all parties, it was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had also not directed entry of final judgment for particular claims or parties under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order was also not appealable under any other statutes or as a collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1990. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed all defendants except one in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the order was not a final order resolving all issues for all parties, it was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had also not directed entry of final judgment for particular claims or parties under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order was also not appealable under any other statutes or as a collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    894 F.

    2d 401
    Unpublished Disposition

    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.
    David HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS; City Counsel; Jessie Rattley,
    Mayor;
    Joe Frank, Vice Mayor; Seventh Judiciary; Judge Smith;
    Judge Bateman; Judge Curran; Judge Stephens; Willard
    Robinson, Commonwealth's Attorney; Clay Hester, Sheriff;
    Thomas W. Carpenter, Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 89-7753.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Oct. 20, 1989.
    Decided: Jan. 16, 1990.

    David Harrell, appellant pro se.


    Verbena M. Askew, City Attorney, Arthur G. Lamiotte, Senior Assistant
    City Attorney; Gregory E. Lucyk, Office of the Attorney General; Robert
    De Hardit Hicks, Martin, Hicks & Ingles, Ltd; Timothy Scott Fisher,
    Gibson, Martin, Overman, Fisher & Carpenter, for Appellees.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, K.K. HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    David Harrell appeals the district court's order dismissing all of the defendants
    except Sheriff Clay Hester in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final
    orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all
    parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
    do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
    (1945).

    As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as
    to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order
    appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292. Finally, the order is not
    appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

    Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny Harrell's motion for release
    on bond and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral
    argument because the dispositive issues have been decided authoritatively.

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like