Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant, Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant

92 F.3d 1181, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25691
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 30, 1996
Docket96-6151
StatusUnpublished

This text of 92 F.3d 1181 (Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant, Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant) 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
Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant, Ronald Jerry Sawyer v. S. Alexander T. Goodrich D. Lipscone R. Walker, Sergeant, 92 F.3d 1181, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25691 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

92 F.3d 1181

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ronald Jerry SAWYER, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
S. ALEXANDER; T. Goodrich; D. Lipscone; R. Walker,
Sergeant, Defendants--Appellees.
Ronald Jerry SAWYER, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
S. ALEXANDER; T. Goodrich; D. Lipscone; R. Walker,
Sergeant, Defendants--Appellees.

Nos. 96-6151, 96-6432.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 1996.
Decided July 30, 1996.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-1105-CV-2, CA-95-1103-CV-2).

Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

NO. 96-6151 AFFIRMED AND NO. 96-6432 DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 96-6151, Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We find that the denial of leave to appeal was not an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1965). Accordingly, we affirm.

In No. 96-6432, Appellant appeals from the district court's order declining to rule on the motions he filed after filing his appeal in No. 96-6151. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed 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.

No. 96-6151--AFFIRMED.

No. 96-6432--DISMISSED.

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)
Elmo Williams v. H. v. Field
394 F.2d 329 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 F.3d 1181, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-jerry-sawyer-v-s-alexander-t-goodrich-d-lipscone-r-walker-ca4-1996.