Harris v. Lappin

307 F. App'x 718
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 18, 2008·No. No. 08-7817·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for an extension of time to file a response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in his underlying action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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 Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final 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

Harris v. Lappin, 307 F. App'x 718 (4th Cir. 2008).

307 F. App'x 718 (Harris v. Lappin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related