Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gevara v. Keller, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jorge Gevara's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the district court's order denying Gevara's motion to reconsider its previous order denying Gevara's motion to amend his complaint was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As such, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-01-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7544

    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 Jorge Gevara's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the district court's order denying Gevara's motion to reconsider its previous order denying Gevara's motion to amend his complaint was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As such, 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
    5 views2 pages

    Gevara v. Keller, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jorge Gevara's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the district court's order denying Gevara's motion to reconsider its previous order denying Gevara's motion to amend his complaint was not a final order and did not fall under the exceptions for interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As such, 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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-7544

    JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; ROBERT C. LEWIS; RICHARD NEELY;
    LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY T. SMITH; JUDY ATWATER; DENNIS E.
    MARSHALL; BETTY INPOLD; D. HOUSE; J. HYATT; E. COLEMAN,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00454-RJC)

    Submitted:

    January 13, 2011

    Decided:

    January 21, 2011

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro


    Assistant
    Attorney
    General,
    Appellee Betty Inpold.

    Se.
    Peter Andrew Regulski,
    Raleigh,
    North
    Carolina,
    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jorge
    order

    denying

    Gevara

    seeks

    to

    reconsideration

    appeal

    of

    its

    Gevaras motion to amend his complaint.

    the

    district

    previous

    order

    courts
    denying

    This court may exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006),


    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C.

    1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.


    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).
    to

    appeal

    is

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.


    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    order

    The order Gevara seeks


    nor

    an

    appealable

    Accordingly, we dismiss the

    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