Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Smith v. Fleming, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order denies Michael Sewell Smith's motion to transfer his case to another district court division. The Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal as interlocutory, as the denial of a transfer motion is not a final appealable order. The court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-final interlocutory order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Smith v. Fleming, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order denies Michael Sewell Smith's motion to transfer his case to another district court division. The Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal as interlocutory, as the denial of a transfer motion is not a final appealable order. The court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-final interlocutory order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7636

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order denies Michael Sewell Smith's motion to transfer his case to another district court division. The Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal as interlocutory, as the denial of a transfer motion is not a final appealable order. The court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-final interlocutory order.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Fleming, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order denies Michael Sewell Smith's motion to transfer his case to another district court division. The Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal as interlocutory, as the denial of a transfer motion is not a final appealable order. The court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-final interlocutory order.

    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. 95-7636

    MICHAEL SEWELL SMITH,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RUFUS FLEMING, Warden; CAPTAIN BENNETT;
    CAPTAIN WHITLOW; M. HICKS, Lt.; G. WADE, Lt.;
    M. L. HILL; SERGEANT WHITEHEAD; SERGEANT
    FERGUSON; SERGEANT MOORE; C/O GOIN; C/O
    HUDSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Raymond A.
    Jackson, District Judges. (CA-95-843-2)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1996

    Decided:

    April 25, 1996

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Sewell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his
    motion to transfer his case to another division. 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. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. 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