Garrett v. Fleming

Fourth Circuit

Garrett v. Fleming

71 F. App'x 238

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

DocketNos. 03-6327, 03-6502

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 F. App'x 238 (Garrett v. Fleming) 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

Garrett v. Fleming, 71 F. App'x 238 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Wayne A. Garrett seeks to appeal the orders granting motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as to some, but not all, defendants. 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 orders that Garrett seeks to appeal do not dispense with all claims as to all parties. Therefore, the orders are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Garrett’s motion for a stay pending appeal. 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.

In these consolidated appeals, Wayne A. Garrett seeks to appeal the orders granting motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as to some, but not all, defendants. 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 orders that Garrett seeks to appeal do not dispense with all claims as to all parties. Therefore, the orders are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Garrett’s motion for a stay pending appeal. 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)

71 F. App'x 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-fleming-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack