Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chandler v. Carteret County, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr. v. Carteret County et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The order summarizes that Chandler appealed the district court's order dismissing certain defendants from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court's order was not a final decision or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6139

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr. v. Carteret County et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The order summarizes that Chandler appealed the district court's order dismissing certain defendants from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court's order was not a final decision or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Chandler v. Carteret County, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr. v. Carteret County et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The order summarizes that Chandler appealed the district court's order dismissing certain defendants from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court's order was not a final decision or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, 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. 01-6139

    DORMAN MACK CHANDLER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CARTERET COUNTY; CARTERET COUNTY BOARD
    COMMISSIONERS; CARTERET COUNTY, Sheriff,

    OF
    Defendants - Appellees,

    and
    OLIVIA BENNETT,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-00-588-5-F)

    Submitted:

    March 22, 2001

    Decided:

    March 30, 2001

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Dorman Mack Chandler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dorman Mack Chandler appeals the district courts order dismissing certain defendants from his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983
    (1994). 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