Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Burl Howell v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Burl Anderson Howell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Howell sought to appeal a district court order that denied without prejudice his motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion as premature. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-08-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1759

    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 Burl Anderson Howell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Howell sought to appeal a district court order that denied without prejudice his motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion as premature. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Burl Howell v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Burl Anderson Howell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Howell sought to appeal a district court order that denied without prejudice his motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion as premature. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Dismissed by Supreme Court, November 2, 2015

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-1759

    BURL ANDERSON HOWELL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:14-cv-00898-F)

    Submitted:

    August 4, 2015

    Decided:

    August 11, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Burl Anderson Howell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Kimberly Ann Moore,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Burl Anderson Howell seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    denying

    without

    prejudice

    as

    premature

    his

    leave to file a motion for summary judgment.

    motion

    for

    This court may

    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291


    (2012),

    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial


    Indus.

    Loan

    Corp.,

    Howell

    seeks

    to

    337

    U.S.

    appeal

    is

    541,

    545-46

    neither

    (1949).
    final

    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.


    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    The

    order

    order

    nor

    an

    Accordingly, we
    We dispense with
    contentions
    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    DISMISSED

    You might also like