Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Herbert Hayes v. Be & K Construction Company, 850 F.2d 689, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished appellate court decision from 1988. It summarizes that Herbert Hayes sought to appeal a district court order granting a motion to compel discovery from one party and denying his own motion to compel discovery. However, the appellate court found that the order was not a final order and therefore not appealable, as the litigation on the merits was still ongoing in the district court. As such, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Herbert Hayes v. Be & K Construction Company, 850 F.2d 689, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views2 pages
    The document is an unpublished appellate court decision from 1988. It summarizes that Herbert Hayes sought to appeal a district court order granting a motion to compel discovery from one party and denying his own motion to compel discovery. However, the appellate court found that the order was not a final order and therefore not appealable, as the litigation on the merits was still ongoing in the district court. As such, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 850 F.2d 689 Docket: 88-8108

    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    The document is an unpublished appellate court decision from 1988. It summarizes that Herbert Hayes sought to appeal a district court order granting a motion to compel discovery from one party and denying his own motion to compel discovery. However, the appellate court found that the order was not a final order and therefore not appealable, as the litigation on the merits was still ongoing in the district court. As such, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Herbert Hayes v. Be & K Construction Company, 850 F.2d 689, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished appellate court decision from 1988. It summarizes that Herbert Hayes sought to appeal a district court order granting a motion to compel discovery from one party and denying his own motion to compel discovery. However, the appellate court found that the order was not a final order and therefore not appealable, as the litigation on the merits was still ongoing in the district court. As such, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    850 F.

    2d 689
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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.
    Herbert HAYES, Petitioner,
    v.
    BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 88-8108.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: May 27, 1988.
    Decided: June 24, 1988.

    Herbert Hayes, appellant pro se.


    John Brendan Kelly (Hunton & Williams), for appellee.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Herbert Hayes seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the defendant's
    motion to compel discovery and denying his own motion to compel discovery.

    Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final
    orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all
    parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
    do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
    (1945).

    As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as

    to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order


    appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292.* Finally, the order is
    not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
    4

    Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as


    interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral
    argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED.

    Hayes argues that this Court has jurisdiction under Sec. 1292(b). This assertion
    is incorrect, because the district court did not certify its order as appealable
    under Sec. 1292(b)

    You might also like