Burgess v. Medlock

59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23231, 1995 WL 375875
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1995
Docket95-6263
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 165 (Burgess v. Medlock) 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
Burgess v. Medlock, 59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23231, 1995 WL 375875 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 165
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ernest Leroy BURGESS, a/k/a Raheen Malik Shabazz, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
T. Travis MEDLOCK, Attorney General of South Carolina;
Parker Evatt, Commissioner of South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6263.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

Ernest Leroy Burgess, appellant pro se. Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, Barbara Murcier Bowens, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, SC, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for partial summary judgment. 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and 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

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

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23231, 1995 WL 375875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-medlock-ca4-1995.