Powell v. Nuth

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 2005
Docket05-6430
StatusUnpublished

This text of Powell v. Nuth (Powell v. Nuth) 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
Powell v. Nuth, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6430

MICHAEL JACKSON POWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EUGENE M. NUTH; JOHN R. ALLISON, Captain; WAYNE D. HARBIN; RUSSELL M. HUDSON; DONALD R. WILLIAMS; HOWARD C. HEISS, III; MISTER HOEY; MISTER FORD; JOHN DOE, Unidentified Baltimore County Police Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05- 170-RWT)

Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Jackson Powell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael Jackson Powell seeks to appeal the district

courts’ order granting Powell’s motion to reopen his twenty-eight

year old action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) but staying the

action pending receipt from the Baltimore County Office of Law of

a status report regarding record retention and the viability of the

Defendants.

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 Powell 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 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

- 2 -

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)
Powell v. Nuth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-nuth-ca4-2005.