Muhammad X v. Taylor

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6879

RAHIM E. H. MUHAMMAD X, a/k/a Rahim X,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

F. TAYLOR; LIEUTENANT BOYERS; SERGEANT SMILEY; SERGEANT CONNORS; SERGEANT SANTIAGO; DOCTOR LIGHTNER; DOCTOR WONG; D. SWISHER; R. W. BYRD; C. AILSTOCK; L. SAUNDERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1296-R)

Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rahim E.H. Muhammad X, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Dudley Obenshain, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Vir- ginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Rahim E. H. Muhammad X appeals from the district court's order

continuing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action for ninety days and

ordering him to exhaust inmate grievance procedures. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-

able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 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