Bailey-El v. Corcoran

Fourth Circuit

Bailey-El v. Corcoran

70 F. App'x 146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2003

Docket03-6786

StatusUnpublished

This text of 70 F. App'x 146 (Bailey-El v. Corcoran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey-El v. Corcoran, 70 F. App'x 146 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald G. Bailey-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his claims filed under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (West Supp.2003). 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. *147 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Although the district court administratively closed Bailey-El’s case when it consolidated his case with those filed by other inmates, his co-plaintiffs’ actions are still pending. Only once those claims have been adjudicated may this court assert appellate jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that order not final if it disposes of “fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties”). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ronald G. Bailey-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his claims filed under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (West Supp.2003). 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. *147 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Although the district court administratively closed Bailey-El’s case when it consolidated his case with those filed by other inmates, his co-plaintiffs’ actions are still pending. Only once those claims have been adjudicated may this court assert appellate jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that order not final if it disposes of “fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties”). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F. App'x 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-el-v-corcoran-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack