White by Swafford v. City of Chattanooga

843 F.2d 1393, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4026, 1988 WL 27533
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 31, 1988
Docket87-5389
StatusUnpublished

This text of 843 F.2d 1393 (White by Swafford v. City of Chattanooga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White by Swafford v. City of Chattanooga, 843 F.2d 1393, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4026, 1988 WL 27533 (6th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

843 F.2d 1393

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Walter Clyde WHITE, b/n/f Jean SWAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, a municipal corporation,
individually and by virtue of the acts of its
agents or officers, Steve Angel, Connie
C. King, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 87-5389.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 31, 1988.

Before MILBURN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges and ANN ALDRICH, District Judge.*

ORDER

The plaintiff appeals from an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of six (6) defendants and from the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The remaining defendants have filed a notice of cross-appeal.

The record shows that summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants Angel, Bean, Dotson, Evatt, King and the City of Chattanooga. Four (4) defendants remain. Both plaintiff and the remaining defendants moved in district court for certification to appeal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). The district court denied both motions.

Absent certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) or Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an order disposing of fewer than all the parties or claims in an action is nonappealable. William B. Tanner Co. v. United States, 575 F.2d 101 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam); Oak Const. Co. v. Huron Cement Co., 475 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam).

It is ORDERED that the appeal of the plaintiff herein be dismissed sua sponte. Rule 9(b)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Ann Aldrich, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oak Construction Company v. Huron Cement Company
475 F.2d 1220 (Sixth Circuit, 1973)
William B. Tanner Company, Inc. v. United States
575 F.2d 101 (Sixth Circuit, 1978)
Wrenn (Curtis L.) v. Rogers (John P.), Kurtz (Myers)
843 F.2d 1393 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
843 F.2d 1393, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4026, 1988 WL 27533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-by-swafford-v-city-of-chattanooga-ca6-1988.