McClain v. North Carolina Department of Correction

Fourth Circuit

McClain v. North Carolina Department of Correction

33 F. App'x 99

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 25, 2002·No. Nos. 01-7918, 01-7999·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court’s orders dismissing fewer than all the claims and parties in McClain’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) (No. 01-7918), and dismissing McClain’s “Motion to Show Cause For the Removal of Counsel” (No. 01-7999). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. Ve 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.

Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court’s orders dismissing fewer than all the claims and parties in McClain’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) (No. 01-7918), and dismissing McClain’s “Motion to Show Cause For the Removal of Counsel” (No. 01-7999). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. Ve 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.

McClain v. North Carolina Department of Correction, 33 F. App'x 99 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

33 F. App'x 99 (McClain v. North Carolina Department of Correction) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related