Scinto v. Preston

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6207

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 27, 2007 Decided: July 13, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

orders dismissing certain defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders Scinto seeks to appeal

are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Defendants’ motion to stay and Scinto’s

motions to consolidate and to strike. 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 -