Beck v. Frank Woods

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 1998
Docket97-3269
StatusUnpublished

This text of Beck v. Frank Woods (Beck v. Frank Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beck v. Frank Woods, (8th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 97-3269 ___________

Beck, formerly known as David * Wayne Vanderbeck, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Frank Woods; Dennis Benson; David * Crist; Robert Reed; David Wilmus; * [UNPUBLISHED] Wendel Anderson; Linda Harder; * Jose Lopez; Mike Seath; Robert * Aufderhar; Dan Paskowitz; Kathy * Dodge; Winney Mackey; Dr. Ramos, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: April 22, 1998 Filed: April 24, 1998 ___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM. Beck appeals the District Court’s1 order affirming the magistrate judge’s2 denial of pre-trial motions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Beck, a Minnesota inmate, sued several prison officials and employees, claiming deprivation of property, threats, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to medical needs. Beck filed a motion to strike one defendant’s answer, a motion for writ of attachment, and a “Motion to Strike Defendant’s Opposition/Pleading.” The magistrate judge denied these motions, and the District Court subsequently affirmed. On appeal to this Court, Beck argues that his motions should have been granted.

As Beck is not appealing from a final decision of the District Court, and the order appealed from does not qualify as an appealable interlocutory order, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1994); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1991) (stating that, generally, appealable order is decision ending litigation on merits and leaving nothing for court to do but execute judgment); United States v. Brakke, 813 F.2d 912, 913 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (noting pre- trial orders are not final decisions and are not reviewable). Accordingly, we dismiss. We also deny Beck’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

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

Related

Emerson Thomas v. Marian Basham
931 F.2d 521 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Beck v. Frank Woods, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-frank-woods-ca8-1998.