McNeill v. Vanburen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 19, 2003
• Docket: 03-6565
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6565

JAMES C. MCNEILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS VANBUREN, Second Shift Lieutenant; BENJAMIN LEA, Second Shift Sergeant; SHARON SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN; MARY WATSON, RN; CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROYSTER, Second Shift Correctional Officer; HOWARD CRABTREE, Second Shift Correctional Officer; CURTIS MAGNUM, Second Shift Correctional Officer; ASHANTI WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer; JAMES WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer; NORWOOD, Second Shift Correctional Officer; LINDA MORGAN, Third Shift Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-120-5-BO)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003

Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*

* This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000). 2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

James C. McNeill, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the

district court’s order dismissing his claims against several

defendants on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),

but maintaining the action as to other defendants. 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 appealed from 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