White v. Bailey

Fourth Circuit

White v. Bailey

15 F. App'x 112

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1241

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F. App'x 112 (White v. Bailey) 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

White v. Bailey, 15 F. App'x 112 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Priscilla Penne White appeals the district court’s order dismissing White’s action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) based on motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by each Defendant except Alan Whitaker. However, 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the order appealed here does not address all of the parties to this action it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and 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

PER CURIAM.

Priscilla Penne White appeals the district court’s order dismissing White’s action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) based on motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by each Defendant except Alan Whitaker. However, 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the order appealed here does not address all of the parties to this action it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. App'x 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-bailey-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack