Talley v. Farrell

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 22, 2002
Docket01-2508
StatusUnpublished

This text of Talley v. Farrell (Talley v. Farrell) 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
Talley v. Farrell, (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2508

JAMES A. TALLEY, In his individual capacity and in his capacity as parent and custodian of Asia Brianna Talley, a minor plaintiff,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

CYNTHIA TALLEY, In her individual capacity and in her capacity as parent and custodian of Asia Brianna Talley, a minor plaintiff,

Plaintiff,

versus

JOHN S. FARRELL, Individually and in his official capacity, Chief, Prince George's County Police; JOHN C. LINDSAY, Major, #923, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department, Commander, Inspectional Services; LINDA DIXON, Captain, #887,individually and in her official capacity Prince George's County Police Department, Inspection Services; HENRY HAMER, Lieutenant, #687, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department Internal Affairs Division; ALLEN DISCHINGER, Sergeant, #972, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department Internal Affairs Division; JOSEPH A. ROLLO, Individually and in his official capacity, Director, Psychological Services Division Prince George's County Police Department; EDWARD WALTERS, Sergeant, #1515, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Three; KATIE KELLEY, Officer, #2409, individually and in her official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Three; FRANCIS MAMMANO, Captain, #1698, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Two; ANGELO PIAZZA, Officer, #2337, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Three; JOSEPH COX, Lieutenant, #906, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Two; JAMES O'NEIL, III, Detective, #838, individually and in his official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Two; GLYDE MONTGOMERY, Sergeant, #866, individually and in their official capacity Prince George's County Police Department District Three; JOHN DOE, Officers, individually and in their official capacity Prince George's County Police Department; PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, A body corporate and politic,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 00-3463-CCB)

Submitted: June 26, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Melnick, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney, John A. Bielec, Deputy County Attorney, Laura J. Gwinn, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

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

2 PER CURIAM:

James A. Talley appeals the district court’s orders granting

partial summary judgment to Defendants and denying Talley’s motions

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and for leave to file a second amended

complaint in this employment discrimination action. Our review

discloses that Talley voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the

remaining claims in his suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)

prior to noting his appeal of the district court’s orders. Because

Talley failed to obtain a certification to appeal under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b), we find that we are without jurisdiction over this

appeal. See Mesa v. United States, 61 F.3d 20, 21-22 (11th Cir.

1995).

We accordingly 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

Mesa v. United States
61 F.3d 20 (Eleventh Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Talley v. Farrell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talley-v-farrell-ca4-2002.