Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Byrd v. Garner PD, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Leslie Wayne Byrd's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Byrd's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the State of North Carolina as frivolous but allowed claims against other parties to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not a final order resolving all claims nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeal was interlocutory and dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2036

    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 Leslie Wayne Byrd's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Byrd's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the State of North Carolina as frivolous but allowed claims against other parties to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not a final order resolving all claims nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeal was interlocutory and dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Byrd v. Garner PD, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Leslie Wayne Byrd's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Byrd's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the State of North Carolina as frivolous but allowed claims against other parties to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's order was not a final order resolving all claims nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeal was interlocutory and dismissed.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-2036

    LESLIE WAYNE BYRD,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GARNER POLICE DEPARTMENT; WAKE COUNTY; STATE
    OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-04-313-H)

    Submitted:

    November 4, 2004

    Decided:

    November 9, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Leslie Wayne Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Leslie Wayne Byrd appeals from a district court order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) claims against the State of
    North Carolina as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)
    (2000).

    The court permitted Byrd to proceed with claims against

    the other parties.

    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 (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).
    final

    order

    as

    to

    all

    of

    The order here appealed is neither a


    Byrds

    claims

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like