Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Greene v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Victor Greene's appeal of the district court's dismissal of portions of his complaint. Greene's remaining claims were still pending in district court, so the order was not a final judgment and did not qualify as an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the order was not final, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-8546

    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 Victor Greene's appeal of the district court's dismissal of portions of his complaint. Greene's remaining claims were still pending in district court, so the order was not a final judgment and did not qualify as an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the order was not final, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Greene v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Victor Greene's appeal of the district court's dismissal of portions of his complaint. Greene's remaining claims were still pending in district court, so the order was not a final judgment and did not qualify as an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the order was not final, the Court of Appeals dismissed the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 95-8546

    VICTOR COLLYN GREENE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety
    and Corrections; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden;
    RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; PATRICK CONROY,
    Facility Administrator; WILLIAM H. BRITTON;
    VERONICA MOORE, CMSII; LIEUTENANT EYLER; RON
    WILLIAMS, CMSII; KASSIDY SAVAGE; LIEUTENANT
    REDD; OFFICER ELLIOT, COII; MARSHA MALOFF,
    Facility Administrator; MS. BOOSE, CMSS;
    MS. SMITH, CMSII; MS. SPRIGGS, CMSI; WILSON,
    CMSI; SERGEANT RINGLY,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-95-1513-JFM)
    Submitted:

    May 16, 1996

    Decided:

    May 31, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Victor Collyn Greene, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
    General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's dismissal of portions
    of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) (1988). Appellant's remaining claims are still pending in district court. 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory
    and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); 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