Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Tucker v. Brankner, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Tucker appealed a district court order denying his motion to amend his complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final judgment and was therefore not appealable. The appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and the order denying Tucker's motion to amend did not fall into those categories. The appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Tucker v. Brankner, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Cornelius Tucker appealed a district court order denying his motion to amend his complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final judgment and was therefore not appealable. The appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and the order denying Tucker's motion to amend did not fall into those categories. The appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7545

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cornelius Tucker appealed a district court order denying his motion to amend his complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final judgment and was therefore not appealable. The appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and the order denying Tucker's motion to amend did not fall into those categories. The appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Tucker v. Brankner, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Tucker appealed a district court order denying his motion to amend his complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final judgment and was therefore not appealable. The appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and the order denying Tucker's motion to amend did not fall into those categories. The appeal was dismissed 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. 95-7545

    CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CAPTAIN BRANKNER; SERGEANT DINEHART,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
    (CA-95-764-5-BR)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1996

    Decided:

    April 23, 1996

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cornelius Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to amend his complaint. 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
    U.S.C. 1292 (1988); 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