Crisp v. North Carolina Department of Corrections

Fourth Circuit

Crisp v. North Carolina Department of Corrections

109 F. App'x 615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 2004

DocketNo. 04-7131

StatusPublished

This text of 109 F. App'x 615 (Crisp v. North Carolina Department of Corrections) 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

Crisp v. North Carolina Department of Corrections, 109 F. App'x 615 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Taurice M. Crisp seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing prison officials to deduct a percentage of his monthly income from his prison account to pay the filing fee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Crisp seeks to appeal is neither a [616]*616final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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

PER CURIAM:

Taurice M. Crisp seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing prison officials to deduct a percentage of his monthly income from his prison account to pay the filing fee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Crisp seeks to appeal is neither a [616]*616final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crisp-v-north-carolina-department-of-corrections-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack