Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gregory v. Boyers, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Earl Linwood Gregory appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of several defendants but leaving one defendant remaining in the case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve the case for all parties and claims. The appeals court can only hear appeals from final orders that fully resolve all claims for all parties, and the order in question did not meet this standard of being final. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6608

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Earl Linwood Gregory appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of several defendants but leaving one defendant remaining in the case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve the case for all parties and claims. The appeals court can only hear appeals from final orders that fully resolve all claims for all parties, and the order in question did not meet this standard of being final. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Gregory v. Boyers, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Earl Linwood Gregory appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of several defendants but leaving one defendant remaining in the case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final, as it did not resolve the case for all parties and claims. The appeals court can only hear appeals from final orders that fully resolve all claims for all parties, and the order in question did not meet this standard of being final. Therefore, 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. 96-6608

    EARL LINWOOD GREGORY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    R. BOYERS; C. H. BYERS, Sergeant; C. D.
    BUTLER, Corporal; J. FRIDLEY; CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER MINTER; CHARLES T. CUNNIFF,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-94-473-R)
    Submitted:

    June 20, 1996

    Decided:

    July 29, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Earl Linwood Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of several Defendants, leaving one Defendant remaining in the case. 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