Ogunde v. Harrison

Fourth Circuit

Ogunde v. Harrison

6 F. App'x 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2001

Docket00-7521

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 194 (Ogunde v. Harrison) 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

Ogunde v. Harrison, 6 F. App'x 194 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Oludare Ogunde appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a number of defendants, dismissing most of Ogunde’s claims in this civil rights action, but declining to dismiss two of Ogunde’s claims. 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. § 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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

PER CURIAM.

Oludare Ogunde appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a number of defendants, dismissing most of Ogunde’s claims in this civil rights action, but declining to dismiss two of Ogunde’s claims. 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. § 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogunde-v-harrison-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack