Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hinton v. Henderson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Charles Everette Hinton. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hinton's appeal of the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to add an additional defendant. The order was not a final decision, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the court dismissed Hinton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-04-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6096

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Charles Everette Hinton. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hinton's appeal of the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to add an additional defendant. The order was not a final decision, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the court dismissed Hinton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Hinton v. Henderson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Charles Everette Hinton. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hinton's appeal of the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to add an additional defendant. The order was not a final decision, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the court dismissed Hinton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6096

    CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL W. HENDERSON; PETER S. GILCHRIST; TERESA BROADWAY;
    ANDREW RUDGERS, Probation Officer,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Dennis L. Howell,
    Magistrate Judge. (3:10-cv-00505-RJC-DLH)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2011

    Decided:

    April 6, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Everett Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin,


    WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North
    Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney
    General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Everette Hinton seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judges order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. 1983
    (2006) complaint to add an additional defendant.

    This court may

    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291


    (2006),

    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial


    Indus.

    Loan

    Hinton

    seeks

    Corp.,
    to

    337

    U.S.

    appeal

    is

    541,

    545-46

    neither

    (1949).
    final

    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    The

    order

    order

    nor

    an

    Accordingly, we

    deny Hintons request for counsel and dismiss the appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction.

    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

    You might also like