Moore v. Padula

Fourth Circuit

Moore v. Padula

501 F. App'x 306

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 27, 2012·No. No. 12-7376·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Appellees’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice and with leave to refile. Appellees move to dismiss on the ground that Moore has appealed an interlocutory order. 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 Moore seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tony L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Appellees’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice and with leave to refile. Appellees move to dismiss on the ground that Moore has appealed an interlocutory order. 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 Moore seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and 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.

Moore v. Padula, 501 F. App'x 306 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

501 F. App'x 306 (Moore v. Padula) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related