Roberson v. Padula

Fourth Circuit

Roberson v. Padula

607 F. App'x 319

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2015

DocketNo. 15-6302

StatusPublished

This text of 607 F. App'x 319 (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, 607 F. App'x 319 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 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., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). 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. We deny Roberson’s motions to place his case in abeyance, for costs, and for duress, and 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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 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., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). 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. We deny Roberson’s motions to place his case in abeyance, for costs, and for duress, and 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)

607 F. App'x 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-padula-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack