Scinto v. Preston

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 25, 2007
• Docket: 07-6128
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6128

PAUL SCINTO, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EDWARD GLENN PRESTON; RALPH MELTON, JR.; FRANK POLUMBO; BRIAN LEMAY; ERIC WING; E&J AUTOMOTIVE, et al.; THE CITY OF NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cv-00178-H)

Submitted: June 8, 2007 Decided: June 25, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Carlton Thornton, Sarah Lynne Ford, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary Hamilton Clemmons, CHESNUTT, CLEMMONS & PEACOCK, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Paul Scinto, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying in part his motion for default judgment. 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 Scinto 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 Appellees’ motion to stay. 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 -