Butler v. Lanham
This text of 37 F.3d 1492 (Butler v. Lanham) 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.
Opinion
37 F.3d 1492
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David E. BUTLER, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Richard A. LANHAM, Sr.; Sewall B. Smith; James C. Sanders,
Defendants Appellees,
and
Sergeant THOMAS, Co III; Corporal Davis, Co II; Corporal
Gather, Co II; One Unknown Correctional Officer,
Defendants.
No. 93-6881.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted October 28, 1993.
Decided October 6, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-93-1079-JFM)
David E. Butler, appellant pro se.
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Amy Kushner Kline, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
D.Md.
DISMISSED.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing some but not all Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. 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 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 F.3d 1492, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34783, 1994 WL 545008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-lanham-ca4-1994.