Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Benson v. Plaza Associates, Inc., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bryan O'Neal Benson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had granted Benson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and allowed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to proceed. The Court of Appeals determined that this order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-12-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1743

    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 Bryan O'Neal Benson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had granted Benson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and allowed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to proceed. The Court of Appeals determined that this order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Benson v. Plaza Associates, Inc., 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bryan O'Neal Benson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had granted Benson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and allowed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to proceed. The Court of Appeals determined that this order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 07-1743

    BRYAN ONEAL BENSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; J. COOPER,
    Crabtree
    Police
    Officer;
    MONK,
    Security
    Officer; JOHN DOE, Security Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (5:07-cv-00087-FL)

    Submitted:

    December 13, 2007

    Decided:

    December 17, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bryan ONeal Benson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bryan ONeal Benson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    granting Benson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing his
    claim

    for

    intentional

    infliction

    of

    emotional

    distress,

    allowing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) claim to proceed.

    and

    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).

    The order Benson seeks to appeal

    is

    an

    neither

    final

    collateral order.

    order

    nor

    appealable

    interlocutory

    or

    Accordingly, we 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like