Kenney v. Baskerville

Fourth Circuit

Kenney v. Baskerville

142 F. App'x 179

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 2005

DocketNo. 04-7514

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 179 (Kenney v. Baskerville) 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

Kenney v. Baskerville, 142 F. App'x 179 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing several claims and defendants in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. The order did not dismiss all parties and 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). See 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 Kenney and Townsend seek 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

PER CURIAM:

Bruce E. Kenney and Milton Townsend seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing several claims and defendants in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. The order did not dismiss all parties and 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). See 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 Kenney and Townsend seek 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-baskerville-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack