Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Doctor Anderson Patricia Hargrave, Nurse

16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7298, 1994 WL 7207
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 1994
Docket93-7027
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 411 (Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Doctor Anderson Patricia Hargrave, Nurse) 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
Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Doctor Anderson Patricia Hargrave, Nurse, 16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7298, 1994 WL 7207 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 411
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Doctor ANDERSON; Patricia Hargrave, Nurse, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-7027.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 1993.
Decided: Jan. 13, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-753-CRT-F)

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

Appellant appeals the district court clerk's alleged failure to serve Appellees with copies of Appellant's amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no appealable order. 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). Neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order exists in this case.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7298, 1994 WL 7207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-tucker-jr-v-doctor-anderson-patricia-har-ca4-1994.