Waller v. Page

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 17, 2001
Docket00-7309
StatusUnpublished

This text of Waller v. Page (Waller v. Page) 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
Waller v. Page, (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7309

ANTONIO M. WALLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CATHERINE PAGE, Psychiatrist, Red Onion State Prison; P. RASNICK, Nurse; LIEUTENANT YOUNCE; SERGEANT FLANARY; SERGEANT FOWLER; THOMPSON, Prison Guard,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

FRED SCHILLING, Director of Health Services; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-762-7)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio M. Waller, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner, Heather Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Antonio M. Waller appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to some of the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action. 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.

We 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

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Waller v. Page, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waller-v-page-ca4-2001.