Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bilal v. Currie, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Shateek Amin Bilal's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order. The previous order dismissed some but not all of Bilal's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6848

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Shateek Amin Bilal's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order. The previous order dismissed some but not all of Bilal's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Bilal v. Currie, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Shateek Amin Bilal's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order. The previous order dismissed some but not all of Bilal's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. Therefore, the 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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6848

    SHATEEK AMIN BILAL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GEORGE
    CURRIE,
    Superintendent;
    LAWRENCE
    SOLOMON, Assistant Superintendent; RICKY DUKE,
    Assistant Superintendent; JEANNIE LANCASTER;
    HAROLD PERSON; MICHAEL MUNNS; LIEUTENANT RYAN;
    SERGEANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT VANBUREN; SERGEANT
    OAKES; GUARD NORWOOD; GUARD IRBY; GUARD
    WILLIAMS; GUARD MAGNUM; GUARD JONES; GUARD
    MCMILLION; GUARD CORDELL; DAVID CARROLL,
    Sergeant; SERGEANT WESLEY; SERGEANT SMITH,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-02-9-5-H)

    Submitted:

    September 5, 2002

    Decided:

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Shateek Amin Bilal, Appellant Pro Se.

    September 10, 2002

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Shateek Amin Bilal appeals the district courts order denying
    his motion for reconsideration of a previous order that dismissed
    some, but not all, of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) claims as
    frivolous.

    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 (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 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