Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dove v. City of Kinston, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document is a court order dismissing an appeal by Anthony Dove of the district court's order dismissing some but not all defendants in Dove's civil rights case. The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court case is still ongoing and the order being appealed from is not a final decision and does not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court also denies Dove's motions for sanctions and regarding the timeliness of a response brief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6846

    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 order dismissing an appeal by Anthony Dove of the district court's order dismissing some but not all defendants in Dove's civil rights case. The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court case is still ongoing and the order being appealed from is not a final decision and does not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court also denies Dove's motions for sanctions and regarding the timeliness of a response brief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    Dove v. City of Kinston, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order dismissing an appeal by Anthony Dove of the district court's order dismissing some but not all defendants in Dove's civil rights case. The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court case is still ongoing and the order being appealed from is not a final decision and does not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court also denies Dove's motions for sanctions and regarding the timeliness of a response brief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6846

    ANTHONY DOVE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THE CITY OF KINSTON; KINSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT;
    KINSTON HUMAN RESOURCES/PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT;
    GREGORY SMITH, Fire Chief; KARL L. MUNSON,
    Human Resource Director; COUNTY OF LENOIR,
    NORTH
    CAROLINA;
    LENOIR
    COUNTY
    SHERIFF
    DEPARTMENT; LENOIR COUNTY JAIL; BILLY SMITH,
    Lenoir County Sheriff; ARCHIE BRUITON, Lenoir
    County Head Jailer; BRANSON VICKORY, District
    Attorney for District 8; IMELDA PATE, District
    Attorney for District 8A,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-02-34-4-H)

    Submitted:

    October 9, 2002

    Decided:

    December 3, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,
    SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gerald Patrick Murphy,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Dove appeals the district courts order dismissing his
    civil rights complaint as to the Lenoir County Defendants.

    The

    remaining aspects of the case are still pending before the district
    court.

    This courts jurisdiction to review cases is limited to

    those matters involving final decisions of the district court and


    certain specified interlocutory orders.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292

    Doves appeal does not involve a final order of the

    district court, nor does it involve an appealable interlocutory or


    collateral

    order.

    Accordingly,

    we

    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    as

    interlocutory.
    Dove has also moved for sanctions against Appellees and
    questioned the timeliness of Appellees responsive brief.

    We have

    reviewed each of these motions and find that they do not merit
    relief.

    Accordingly, we deny them both.

    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