Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hoyte v. McFarlin, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in the appellant's action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7088

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in the appellant's action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Hoyte v. McFarlin, 4th Cir. (1998)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in the appellant's action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the Court of Appeals 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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7088

    ALBERT WILLIAMS HOYTE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GORDON B. JENKINSON; DAVID F. MCINNIS, Judge;
    LEGRANDE CARRAWAY, Public Defender of Williamsburg County; COUNTY OF WILLIAMSBURG,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    SHERIFF MCFARLIN; DUANE SHULER, Assistant
    Solicitor; ELEANOR BELTON-SAVAGE, Officer;
    RANDY GRAYSON, Officer,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-97-885-2-17AJ)
    Submitted:

    January 30, 1998

    Decided:

    March 30, 1998

    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Albert Williams Hoyte, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones,
    BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing some
    but not all of the Defendants named in Appellant's action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not
    appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and
    collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
    Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
    order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.
    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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