Jarmuth v. Waters

Fourth Circuit

Jarmuth v. Waters

149 F. App'x 139

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2005

Docket05-1464

StatusUnpublished

This text of 149 F. App'x 139 (Jarmuth v. Waters) 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

Jarmuth v. Waters, 149 F. App'x 139 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald E. Jarmuth seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as to Defendant Kathleen Waters for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing for failure to state a claim some but not all of the claims against Defendant James Frinzi. 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 (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). We lack jurisdiction because the order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.1982). We likewise deny Jarmuth’s motion to treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, as Jarmuth may appeal the district court’s adverse order upon final judgment. See In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135-36 (4th Cir.1992); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

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.

Ronald E. Jarmuth seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as to Defendant Kathleen Waters for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing for failure to state a claim some but not all of the claims against Defendant James Frinzi. 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 (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). We lack jurisdiction because the order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.1982). We likewise deny Jarmuth’s motion to treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, as Jarmuth may appeal the district court’s adverse order upon final judgment. See In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135-36 (4th Cir.1992); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

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)

149 F. App'x 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarmuth-v-waters-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack