Cheatham v. Williams

25 F.3d 1038, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20795, 1994 WL 251169

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 1994
• Docket: 94-1203
• Status: Published

Opinion

25 F.3d 1038
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Adam Troy CHEATHAM, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
John M. WILLIAMS, former Assistant Superintendent/Programs
Hoke Correctional Institution individually and in his former
official capacity; G. Wayne Spears, former Superintendent
for Hoke Correctional Institution individually and in his
former official capacity; Aaron Johnson, former Secretary
of the Department of Correction individually and in his
former official capacity; Franklin E. Freeman, Jr.,
Secretary of Department of Corrections in his official
capacity, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1203.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 24, 1994.
Decided: June 13, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-235-CIV-5-D)

Adam Troy Cheatham, Appellant Pro Se.

Valerie L. Bateman, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing two of Appellant's three claims and retaining the third for further litigation. 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.

Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion 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