Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sattar v. Vaught, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order that granted partial summary judgment on a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order, as is required, but rather was an interlocutory order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7369

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order that granted partial summary judgment on a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order, as is required, but rather was an interlocutory order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    Sattar v. Vaught, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court order that granted partial summary judgment on a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order, as is required, but rather was an interlocutory order. 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-7369

    AHMAD KAIS ABDUL SATTAR,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CAPTAIN JOHNSON; KENNY GREAT,
    SUSAN SAFFORD; RALPH VAUGHT,

    Lieutenant;
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CA-96-1458-6-19AK)
    Submitted:

    March 12, 1998

    Decided:

    March 24, 1998

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ahmad Kais Abdul Sattar, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King,
    WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina,
    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 granting partial
    summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) claims. 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