Muhammad v. Williamson-Crawl

359 F. App'x 363
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 23, 2009·No. No. 09-1091·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. 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 Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Muhammad v. Williamson-Crawl, 359 F. App'x 363 (4th Cir. 2009).

359 F. App'x 363 (Muhammad v. Williamson-Crawl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related