Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Faison v. Shelton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Dossie Faison Jr. regarding the district court's dismissal of some of his claims in a civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into the categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-12-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7178

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Dossie Faison Jr. regarding the district court's dismissal of some of his claims in a civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into the categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Faison v. Shelton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Dossie Faison Jr. regarding the district court's dismissal of some of his claims in a civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall into the categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    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. 01-7178

    DOSSIE FAISON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LIEUTENANT SHELTON; L. MULLINS; L. FLEMINGS,
    Captain; WARDEN TRUE; R. A. YOUNG, Regional
    Director; JOHN DOES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-01-292-7)

    Submitted:

    November 29, 2001

    Decided:

    December 6, 2001

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Dossie Faison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    In this civil action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp.
    2001), Dossie Faison, Jr., appeals the district courts order dismissing several of Faisons claims under 28 U.S.C.A. 1915A(b)(1)
    (West Supp. 2001).

    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 (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

    You might also like