Davis v. Margerum

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. Margerum

32 F. App'x 93

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2002

Docket02-1096

StatusUnpublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 93 (Davis v. Margerum) 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

Davis v. Margerum, 32 F. App'x 93 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Yvette Davis appeals the district court’s orders filed on December 12, 2001, and entered on December 19, 2001, granting motions to dismiss her civil action against some, but not all, Defendants. 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. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir.1982).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Defendants Machen’s and Armstrong’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 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.

Yvette Davis appeals the district court’s orders filed on December 12, 2001, and entered on December 19, 2001, granting motions to dismiss her civil action against some, but not all, Defendants. 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. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir.1982).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Defendants Machen’s and Armstrong’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 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)

32 F. App'x 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-margerum-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack