Chilton v. Kelly
This text of 452 F. App'x 348 (Chilton v. Kelly) 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
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thomas A. Chilton, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a change of venue. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 order Chilton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.1974). 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 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
452 F. App'x 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chilton-v-kelly-ca4-2011.