Zellinger v. Control Services Inc

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 27, 2003
Docket03-1170
StatusUnpublished

This text of Zellinger v. Control Services Inc (Zellinger v. Control Services Inc) 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
Zellinger v. Control Services Inc, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1170

JAMES A. ZELLINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CONTROL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, a Louisiana Corporation; LUV N’ CARE, LIMITED, a Louisiana Corporation; N. E. HAKIM, an Individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-3)

Submitted: July 23, 2003 Decided: August 27, 2003

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Zellinger, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Monroe, Jr., Florence Valerie Rusk, FORD & HARRISON, Atlanta, Georgia; Grayson Lawrence Reeves, Jr., Charles Atlee Madison, PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James A. Zellinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order

transferring his case to the Western District of Louisiana because

the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Appellees.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order

Zellinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst

of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we

grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Zellinger’s motion to file a formal brief.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zellinger v. Control Services Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zellinger-v-control-services-inc-ca4-2003.