Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Parker v. Snipes, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Monroe Roosevelt Parker Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Parker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice, allowing him to file a new complaint. The Court of Appeals determined that this was not a final order and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-09-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6352

    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 Monroe Roosevelt Parker Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Parker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice, allowing him to file a new complaint. The Court of Appeals determined that this was not a final order and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Parker v. Snipes, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Monroe Roosevelt Parker Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Parker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice, allowing him to file a new complaint. The Court of Appeals determined that this was not a final order and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the case.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6352

    MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    TONIA R. PARKER,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    R. SNIPES, Police Sergeant; J.R. BLALOCK,
    Sheriff; LLOYD GOINS, Jailer/Major; BOBBY
    EASTER,
    Owner/Manager;
    DEPUTY
    REYNOLDS,
    Investigator/Detective,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-867)

    Submitted: August 30, 2007

    Decided: September 6, 2007

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Monroe
    district

    courts

    magistrate

    judge

    Roosevelt
    order
    and

    Parker,

    accepting

    dismissing

    Jr.,
    the

    his

    42

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    recommendation
    U.S.C.

    complaint without prejudice to filing a new complaint.

    of

    1983

    the
    the

    (2000)

    This court

    may exercise jurisdiction only over final 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 Parker seeks to appeal

    is

    an

    neither

    final

    order

    nor

    appealable

    interlocutory

    or

    collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local


    Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like