Montgomery v. Catoe

50 F.3d 7, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11406, 1995 WL 120692
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 22, 1995
Docket94-7499
StatusUnpublished

This text of 50 F.3d 7 (Montgomery v. Catoe) 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
Montgomery v. Catoe, 50 F.3d 7, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11406, 1995 WL 120692 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

50 F.3d 7

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael Wayne MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
William D. CATOE; Carroll Campbell; James L. Harvey;
Lieutenant Cain; Lieutenant Hall; Marcella
Mccoy; Ronald Chapman; Deputy Warden
Wessinger; Angela Hawkins,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7499.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided: March 22, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1898-3-3AK)

Michael Wayne Montgomery, appellant pro se.

William Henry Davidson II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson, Sims, Morrison & Sojourner, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to stay discovery and denying Appellant's motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions. 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 F.3d 7, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11406, 1995 WL 120692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-catoe-ca4-1995.