Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hester v. Stowe, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Hester v. Steven Stowe et al. The court dismissed Hester's appeal of a district court order that dismissed certain defendants and claims from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 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 under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7962

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Hester v. Steven Stowe et al. The court dismissed Hester's appeal of a district court order that dismissed certain defendants and claims from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 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 under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Hester v. Stowe, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Hester v. Steven Stowe et al. The court dismissed Hester's appeal of a district court order that dismissed certain defendants and claims from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 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 under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. Therefore, the appeals court 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. 95-7962

    STEVEN E. HESTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVEN STOWE, F.B.I.; ED RYAN, F.B.I.; PATRICK
    MCNARDO, U.S.M.; SCOTT SEWALL, U.S.M.; OFFICER
    SWEET, AA County Police; BEN WILSON, B.C.D.C.;
    VENABLE, Social Worker, B.C.D.C.,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-952300-AMD)
    Submitted:

    March 12, 1996

    Decided:

    March 21, 1996

    Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven E. Hester, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
    States Attorney, Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, 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 order dismissing certain Defendants and certain claims from his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)
    action. 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