Roberson v. Padula

Fourth Circuit

Roberson v. Padula

568 F. App'x 264

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2014

DocketNo. 13-7897

StatusPublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 264 (Roberson v. Padula) 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

Roberson v. Padula, 568 F. App'x 264 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and dismissing his complaint without prejudice against certain defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the case is ongoing in the district court against the remaining defendants, the order Roberson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Roberson’s objection to the Appellees’ disclosure of corporate affiliations. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and dismissing his complaint without prejudice against certain defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the case is ongoing in the district court against the remaining defendants, the order Roberson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Roberson’s objection to the Appellees’ disclosure of corporate affiliations. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 F. App'x 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-padula-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack