Rose v. Greenbrier Chrysler

441 F. App'x 171
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 1, 2011
DocketNo. 11-1209
StatusPublished

This text of 441 F. App'x 171 (Rose v. Greenbrier Chrysler) 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
Rose v. Greenbrier Chrysler, 441 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James A. Rose appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action ■without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 64(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Rose seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
441 F. App'x 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-greenbrier-chrysler-ca4-2011.