Rites v. Commissioner of Corrections

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 2, 2004
Docket04-6533
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rites v. Commissioner of Corrections (Rites v. Commissioner of Corrections) 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
Rites v. Commissioner of Corrections, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6533

LEO RITES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; COMMISSIONER SONDERVAN; MAJOR LINEBURG, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; HANK MUSK, Psychologist; JOHN SWIVEL, Case Management Specialist; SERGEANT ROBINSON, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 2596-AMD)

Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 2, 2004

Before SHEDD and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leo Rites, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Leo Rites seeks to appeal the district court’s order

directing an answer to Rites’ complaint, among other things. 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 Rites 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)
Rites v. Commissioner of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rites-v-commissioner-of-corrections-ca4-2004.