Percy D. Taylor v. Edward Murray, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and Ellis Wright

Fourth Circuit

Percy D. Taylor v. Edward Murray, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and Ellis Wright

14 F.3d 596, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5005, 1994 WL 10024

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 1994

Docket93-6502

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F.3d 596 (Percy D. Taylor v. Edward Murray, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and Ellis Wright) 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

Percy D. Taylor v. Edward Murray, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and Ellis Wright, 14 F.3d 596, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5005, 1994 WL 10024 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

14 F.3d 596
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Percy D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Edward MURRAY, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and
Ellis Wright, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-6502.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 1993.
Decided Jan. 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-573).

Percy D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Percy Taylor, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Taylor's complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the magistrate judge that Taylor set forth his claims with specificity and brevity. Under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, --- F.3d ----, No. 93-1449 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 1993), we have examined the grounds for dismissal and determine that Taylor can save this action by amending his complaint in compliance with the magistrate judge's order. Therefore, the order which Taylor seeks to appeal is an interlocutory order. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Under Domino Sugar, this order is not an appealable interlocutory 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

*

Taylor's "Motion for Constitutional Rights" is denied

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

14 F.3d 596
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Percy D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Edward MURRAY, Edward C. Morris, James A. Smith, Jr., and
Ellis Wright, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-6502.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 1993.
Decided Jan. 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-573).

Percy D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Percy Taylor, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Taylor's complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the magistrate judge that Taylor set forth his claims with specificity and brevity. Under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, --- F.3d ----, No. 93-1449 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 1993), we have examined the grounds for dismissal and determine that Taylor can save this action by amending his complaint in compliance with the magistrate judge's order. Therefore, the order which Taylor seeks to appeal is an interlocutory order. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Under Domino Sugar, this order is not an appealable interlocutory 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

*

Taylor's "Motion for Constitutional Rights" is denied

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F.3d 596, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5005, 1994 WL 10024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percy-d-taylor-v-edward-murray-edward-c-morris-jam-ca4-1994.