Sides v. State of NC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 2000
Docket00-6497
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sides v. State of NC (Sides v. State of NC) 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
Sides v. State of NC, (4th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6497

RAYMOND LEE SIDES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; J. R. HUNT, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees, and

FRANK MULLINS, Head Nurse; CHARLES W. STEWART, Dr.; THOMAS KILLINS, Officer,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-116-5-BO)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Lee Sides, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Raymond Lee Sides appeals the district court’s order dis-

missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint against

two Defendants, but allowing it to proceed against the remaining

Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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. See Robinson v.

Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982).

We therefore dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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)
Sides v. State of NC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sides-v-state-of-nc-ca4-2000.