Harris v. Sheriff of Giles County

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 11, 2004
Docket03-7879
StatusUnpublished

This text of Harris v. Sheriff of Giles County (Harris v. Sheriff of Giles County) 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
Harris v. Sheriff of Giles County, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7879

RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF OF GILES COUNTY; SHERIFF’S DEPT. PERSONNEL; SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES OF GILES COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-547-7)

Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Rodney Victor Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting a motion to dismiss as to several of the claims in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint but denying the motion as to

other claims. 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 (1949). The

order Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny

Harris’s motion for a continuance, and 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

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harris v. Sheriff of Giles County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-sheriff-of-giles-county-ca4-2004.