McRae v. ConMed

Fourth Circuit

McRae v. ConMed

491 F. App'x 395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2012

DocketNo. 12-7712

StatusPublished

This text of 491 F. App'x 395 (McRae v. ConMed) 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

McRae v. ConMed, 491 F. App'x 395 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss the claims against Appellee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order McRae seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to 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 this 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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss the claims against Appellee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order McRae seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 F. App'x 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrae-v-conmed-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack