Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. Woodard, Etal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Daniel Leo Williams v. Mr. Woodard et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order dismissing one defendant from Williams' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint was not a final judgment and did not fall under the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As such, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6110

    Original Title

    Williams v. Woodard, etal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Daniel Leo Williams v. Mr. Woodard et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order dismissing one defendant from Williams' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint was not a final judgment and did not fall under the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As such, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Williams v. Woodard, Etal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Daniel Leo Williams v. Mr. Woodard et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order dismissing one defendant from Williams' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint was not a final judgment and did not fall under the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As such, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it as interlocutory.

    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. 01-6110

    DANIEL LEO WILLIAMS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MR. WOODARD; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Division of Health Services; DOCTOR
    LIGHTSEY; DOCTOR KYERMARTEN,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    JAMES B. HUNT, JR.; THEODIS BECK,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-00-267-5-3-F)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2001

    Decided:

    May 4, 2001

    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Daniel Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Leo Williams appeals the district courts order dismissing one of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp.
    2000) complaint.

    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 (1994), and


    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (1994); 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