Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed the appeal of a district court's order that granted summary judgment to some defendants and dismissed other defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order, as there was still at least one remaining defendant in the case. As the order was not final and did not fall under other exceptions, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-06-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 87 F.3d 1308 Docket: 96-6160

    Original Title

    Fitzroy Blake, A/K/A Gladstone Neysmith, Benjamin Braxton Thomas E. Robertson v. Unknown Irvin, Lieutenant L.H. Brezee Eunice Belvin Unknown or Unidentif A.S. Mathews, Jr., Sheriff, 87 F.3d 1308, 4th Cir. (1996)

    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 a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed the appeal of a district court's order that granted summary judgment to some defendants and dismissed other defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order, as there was still at least one remaining defendant in the case. As the order was not final and did not fall under other exceptions, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed the appeal of a district court's order that granted summary judgment to some defendants and dismissed other defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order, as there was still at least one remaining defendant in the case. As the order was not final and did not fall under other exceptions, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    87 F.

    3d 1308

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Fitzroy BLAKE, a/k/a Gladstone Neysmith, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    Benjamin Braxton; Thomas E. Robertson, Plaintiffs,
    v.
    Unknown IRVIN, Lieutenant; L.H. Brezee; Eunice Belvin;
    Unknown or Unidentif; A.S. Mathews, Jr., Sheriff,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 96-6160.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: May 16, 1996.
    Decided: June 5, 1996.

    Fitzroy Blake, Appellant Pro Se. David Wayne Robinson, Michael Paul
    Falzone, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN,
    Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, Marvin Pierce
    Rucker, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to some
    Defendants, and dismissing other Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)
    civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is
    not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1 and
    certain interlocutory and collateral orders.2 Because there is at least one
    Defendant remaining, 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.

    28 U.S.C. 1291 (1988)

    28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P . 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial


    Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)

    You might also like