DeTemple v. Panepinto
This text of 36 F. App'x 523 (DeTemple v. Panepinto) 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
Gary L. DeTemple appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 motion to vacate a prior order dismissing one of the named defendants in the underlying proceeding. 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 appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. In light of this disposition, we also deny DeTemple’s motions for clarification, for production of documents, and for stay pending appeal, as well as United National Bank’s motions to deny further extensions, to dismiss the case, and to strike DeTemple’s informal brief and response to its motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *524 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
36 F. App'x 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detemple-v-panepinto-ca4-2002.