Spurlock v. Hurst
This text of Spurlock v. Hurst (Spurlock v. Hurst) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1338
GILBERT L. SPURLOCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-1339
No. 09-1340
v. DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1341
No. 09-1343
No. 09-1344
2 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1345
No. 09-1346
No. 09-1347
3 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1348
No. 09-1349
No. 09-1351
4 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1352
No. 09-1353
No. 09-1355
5 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1356
No. 09-1357
No. 09-1358
6 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1359
No. 09-1360
No. 09-1361
7 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1362
No. 09-1370
No. 09-1371
8 DANA R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
No. 09-1380
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg, Elkins, Wheeling, and Martinsburg. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (1:09- cv-00009-REM; 1:09-cv-00012-REM; 1:09-cv-00013-REM; 2:09-cv- 00015-REM; 2:09-cv-00017-REM; 2:09-cv-00013-REM; 2:09-cv-00019- REM; 2:09-cv-00021-REM; 1:09-cv-00025-REM; 1:09-cv-00029-REM; 2:09-cv-00008-REM; 2:09-cv-00016-REM; 2:09-cv-00018-REM; 2:09- cv-00020-REM; 1:09-cv-00022-REM; 1:09-cv-00023-REM; 1:09-cv- 00024-REM; 1:09-cv-00026-REM; 5:09-cv-00011-REM; 5:09-cv-00012- REM; 5:09-cv-00010-REM; 5:09-cv-00018-REM; 3:09-cv-00009-REM; 3:09-cv-00008-REM; 1:09-cv-00014-REM)
Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
9 Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Carol Ann Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
10 PER CURIAM:
Gilbert L. Spurlock seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders transferring his cases to the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia. 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. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders Spurlock seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant the Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the appeals, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny Spurlock’s motion to schedule a conference, and dismiss the
appeals 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
Spurlock v. Hurst, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurlock-v-hurst-ca4-2009.