Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stone v. Sullivan's Auto Body, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction.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 Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the denial of a discovery motion in an underlying district court case because the order denying discovery was not a final judgment and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-2384

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction.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 Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the denial of a discovery motion in an underlying district court case because the order denying discovery was not a final judgment and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Stone v. Sullivan's Auto Body, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction.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 Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the denial of a discovery motion in an underlying district court case because the order denying discovery was not a final judgment and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 97-2384

    HALLIE N. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SULLIVAN'S AUTO BODY, (Trading as) its assignees, and for successors in interest; RICHARD
    L. SULLIVAN, JR., Owner, individually in his
    private capacity; JOHN RICE, Manager,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-97-483-A)
    Submitted:

    February 26, 1998

    Decided:

    March 16, 1998

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hallie N. Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gillen Fenske, KALBAUGH,
    PFUND & MESSERSMITH, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the denial of a discovery motion in the
    underlying 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