Neal v. Miller

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 17, 2003
Docket03-6773
StatusUnpublished

This text of Neal v. Miller (Neal v. Miller) 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
Neal v. Miller, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6773

WILBERT ANTHONY NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STEVEN C. MILLER, Supervising, US Probation Officer; STEVEN LABIER, Bureau of Prison; JOSEPH B. STEELMAN, JR., Chief, US Probation Office,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JAMES A. BEATY, JR., United States District Judge,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-134-9-10BG)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbert Anthony Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Anthony Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment and

removing a federal district court judge from the complaint. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Neal seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Neal’s motions for appointment of counsel and

for oral argument. 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)
Neal v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-miller-ca4-2003.