Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant had appealed a magistrate judge's order requiring the appellant to file a more definite statement of claims in a Section 1983 action. The court dismissed the appeal because the order requiring a more definite statement was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 51 F.3d 265 Docket: 95-6083

    Original Title

    Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray E.C. Morris James E. Briggs James M. Sisk C.D. Larsen L.B. Cei R.S. Lipsner T.L. Parlett W.P. Rogers L.W. Huffman J.A. Smith, Jr. James E. Johnson, Jr. Ellis B. Wright, Jr. R.T. Shurling Fred W. Greene Charles E. Thompson Joann Royster Lonnie M. Saunders David K. Smith Michael A. Shupe P.B. Penn J.O. Grizzard S.R. Whitten V v. Grant M.M. Mallard Bessy Parrous Jack Lee L.W. Jarvis L.D. Sprouse Sergeant Redman D. Swisher Adjustment Committee Appeals Unit, Each Member Thereof Stephen R. Rosenthal Alan Katz Barbara J. Gaden Reneen E. Hewlett Jeanette P. Rogers William W. Muse Mark R. Davis Richard F. Gorman Fred Kozak William R. Coleman Patrick A. O'Hare Karen Lebo Robert H. Herring, Jr. Pamela Anne Sargent Unknown Persons 1 Through 500 Who in Either Whole or Part, Were Either Employed by the Commonwealth of Virginia or Acted in Concert With Any Person Purporting to Exercise Any Color of Authority as an Employee Thereof and Knew or Was Required

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant had appealed a magistrate judge's order requiring the appellant to file a more definite statement of claims in a Section 1983 action. The court dismissed the appeal because the order requiring a more definite statement was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court concluded that it did not have 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
    2 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant had appealed a magistrate judge's order requiring the appellant to file a more definite statement of claims in a Section 1983 action. The court dismissed the appeal because the order requiring a more definite statement was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court concluded that it did not have 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

    51 F.

    3d 265

    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.
    Frank Ervin ALTIZER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Edward W. MURRAY; E.C. Morris; James E. Briggs; James
    M.
    Sisk; C.D. Larsen; L.B. Cei; R.S. Lipsner; T.L. Parlett;
    W.P. Rogers; L.W. Huffman; J.A. Smith, Jr.; James E.
    Johnson, Jr.; Ellis B. Wright, Jr.; R.T. Shurling; Fred
    W. Greene; Charles E. Thompson; Joann Royster; Lonnie M.
    Saunders; David K. Smith; Michael A. Shupe; P.B. Penn;
    J.O. Grizzard; S.R. Whitten; V.V. Grant; M.M. Mallard;
    Bessy Parrous; Jack Lee; L.W. Jarvis; L.D. Sprouse;
    Sergeant Redman; D. Swisher; Adjustment Committee Appeals
    Unit, Each member thereof; Stephen R. Rosenthal; Alan
    Katz; Barbara J. Gaden; Reneen E. Hewlett; Jeanette P.
    Rogers; William W. Muse; Mark R. Davis; Richard F.
    Gorman; Fred Kozak; William R. Coleman; Patrick A.
    O'Hare; Karen Lebo; Robert H. Herring, Jr.; Pamela Anne
    Sargent; Unknown Defendants, Persons 1 through 500 who in
    either whole or part, were either employed by the
    Commonwealth of Virginia or acted in concert with any person
    purporting to exercise any color of authority as an employee
    thereof and knew or was required to know any fact a link in
    the chain of the acts redressed herein, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-6083.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: March 15, 1994
    Decided: April 11, 1995

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-290-R)
    Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.
    Before RUSSELL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order requiring him to file a
    more definite statement of his claims in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action.
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not
    appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial
    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final
    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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