Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tensley-Bey v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Bernard Tensley-Bey appealed a district court order that granted motions to amend, denied other motions, and directed two defendants to file responses in Tensley-Bey's Section 1983 civil rights case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final decision and was therefore not appealable at this stage of the case proceedings. The appeals court noted that Tensley-Bey could not appeal any interlocutory orders at this time.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7074

    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 summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Bernard Tensley-Bey appealed a district court order that granted motions to amend, denied other motions, and directed two defendants to file responses in Tensley-Bey's Section 1983 civil rights case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final decision and was therefore not appealable at this stage of the case proceedings. The appeals court noted that Tensley-Bey could not appeal any interlocutory orders at this time.

    Copyright:

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

    Tensley-Bey v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Bernard Tensley-Bey appealed a district court order that granted motions to amend, denied other motions, and directed two defendants to file responses in Tensley-Bey's Section 1983 civil rights case. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final decision and was therefore not appealable at this stage of the case proceedings. The appeals court noted that Tensley-Bey could not appeal any interlocutory orders at this time.

    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. 01-7074

    BERNARD A. TENSLEY-BEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
    OF CORRECTIONS; DOCTOR ULEP; JO ANN MCCARTHY;
    CMS - CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-00-1449-AM)

    Submitted:

    August 9, 2001

    Decided:

    August 17, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Bernard A. Tensley-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Patrick
    Callahan, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard A. Tensley-Bey appeals the district courts order
    granting his motions to amend, denying his motion to supplement,
    denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying three
    Defendants motions to dismiss as moot, and directing two Defendants to file an answer or responsive pleading in his 42 U.S.C.A.
    1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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


    (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

    We note to the extent Tensley-Bey attempts to appeal the


    district courts November 27, 2000 order, that appeal would be
    similarly interlocutory.
    2

    You might also like