Bey v. Unnamed

Fourth Circuit

Bey v. Unnamed

671 F. App'x 69

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 2016

DocketNo. 16-7142

StatusPublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 69 (Bey v. Unnamed) 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

Bey v. Unnamed, 671 F. App'x 69 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Accardi seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his miscellaneous case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 this 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Accardi seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his miscellaneous case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-unnamed-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack