Brown v. Ionescu

Second Circuit

Brown v. Ionescu

140 F. App'x 324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-5558-PR

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. App'x 324 (Brown v. Ionescu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Ionescu, 140 F. App'x 324 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Dr. Gheorge lonescu appeals from an order of the district court granting him partial summary judgment dismissing a portion of plaintiff Kevin Brown’s complaint. lonescu contends that all of Brown’s claims should have been dismissed. He claims that appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of appellate issues.

Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss Ionescu’s appeal. An order granting partial summary judgment is not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 781 (2d Cir.1999). Moreover, the order appealed falls into none of the exceptions to the general principle that only final orders are appealable. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir.1999) (describing the collateral order exception).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Dr. Gheorge lonescu appeals from an order of the district court granting him partial summary judgment dismissing a portion of plaintiff Kevin Brown’s complaint. lonescu contends that all of Brown’s claims should have been dismissed. He claims that appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of appellate issues.

Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss Ionescu’s appeal. An order granting partial summary judgment is not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 781 (2d Cir.1999). Moreover, the order appealed falls into none of the exceptions to the general principle that only final orders are appealable. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir.1999) (describing the collateral order exception).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. App'x 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-ionescu-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack