Wilkins v. Swann

25 F.3d 1042, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 1994 WL 202509
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 24, 1994
Docket94-6260
StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1042 (Wilkins v. Swann) 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
Wilkins v. Swann, 25 F.3d 1042, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 1994 WL 202509 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1042
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

David WILKINS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Edwin R. SWANN, Dr.; L. Michael Cobo, Dr.; Franklin E.
Freeman, Jr.; Gary Dixon; John Williams;
Central Prison Nurses; Tillery
Correctional Center Nurses,
Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6260.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 24, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-652-CRT-F)

David Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing portions of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); 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)
25 F.3d 1042, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 1994 WL 202509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-v-swann-ca4-1994.