Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Abdul-Akbar v. Savage, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Abdul-Akbar's complaint without prejudice, which is not a final order. The Fourth Circuit may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this dismissal was not. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdul-Akbar's motion for appointment of counsel and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-11-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1628

    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 Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Abdul-Akbar's complaint without prejudice, which is not a final order. The Fourth Circuit may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this dismissal was not. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdul-Akbar's motion for appointment of counsel and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Abdul-Akbar v. Savage, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Abdul-Akbar's complaint without prejudice, which is not a final order. The Fourth Circuit may only hear appeals of final orders or certain interlocutory orders, which this dismissal was not. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Abdul-Akbar's motion for appointment of counsel 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-1628
    DEBRO SIDDIQ ABDUL-AKBAR,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    GARY SAVAGE; ANTHONY COATES; CORNELIOUS HARRISON; ROBERT
    TELLER; KIMBERLY HORSLEY; SHARON LA RHUE; MIKE DAVIS; JOHN
    R. KAYE; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE; AFSCME LOCAL 647,
    and all other Persons who are found to have a hidden hand in
    the acts described within, et al,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (1:08-cv-00542-WMN)
    Submitted:

    October 14, 2008

    Decided:

    November 12, 2008

    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar seeks to appeal the district
    courts order dismissing his complaint without prejudice.
    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    This

    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

    Abdul-Akbar seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an


    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    See Domino Sugar

    Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th
    Cir. 1993).

    Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of

    counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like