Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Ray Jones-Bey v. John Welch et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in Jones-Bey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal as the district court's order was not final or appealable as an interlocutory or collateral order. The appeals court also denied Jones-Bey's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-09-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 7 F.3d 224 Docket: 93-6636

    Original Title

    Ray M. Jones-Bey v. John Welch Wicomico County Council Michael Hunter Andrew Sortman Raymond Roberts Rosalind Hudgins, and Torris Battle Horace Chester Preston Foreman, 7 F.3d 224, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Ray Jones-Bey v. John Welch et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in Jones-Bey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal as the district court's order was not final or appealable as an interlocutory or collateral order. The appeals court also denied Jones-Bey's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Ray Jones-Bey v. John Welch et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed some but not all defendants in Jones-Bey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal as the district court's order was not final or appealable as an interlocutory or collateral order. The appeals court also denied Jones-Bey's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    7 F.

    3d 224

    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.
    Ray M. JONES-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    John WELCH; Wicomico County Council; Michael Hunter;
    Andrew Sortman; Raymond Roberts; Rosalind
    Hudgins, Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    Torris BATTLE; Horace Chester; Preston Foreman,
    Defendants.
    No. 93-6636.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 20, 1993.
    Decided: September 20, 1993.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CA-93-145-HAR)
    Ray M. Jones-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Linda S. Woolf, Goodell, Devries, Leech & Gray, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellees.
    D.Md.
    DISMISSED.
    Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    OPINION
    1

    Ray Jones-Bey appeals from the district court's order dismissing his claims
    against some, but not all, Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 1993 (1988) action. We
    grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Appeal and 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 (1988), and certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial 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

    We deny Jones-Bey's motion for appointment of counsel

    You might also like