Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shaw v. Hunt, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Shaw's interlocutory appeal of two district court orders that dismissed some of Shaw's claims in a Section 1983 lawsuit as frivolous but allowed other claims to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court orders were not final orders and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7088

    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 Joseph Shaw's interlocutory appeal of two district court orders that dismissed some of Shaw's claims in a Section 1983 lawsuit as frivolous but allowed other claims to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court orders were not final orders and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    Shaw v. Hunt, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Shaw's interlocutory appeal of two district court orders that dismissed some of Shaw's claims in a Section 1983 lawsuit as frivolous but allowed other claims to proceed. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court orders were not final orders and did not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7088

    JOSEPH SHAW, a/k/a Jelani Husani Simba,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    CARL GENE BALLARD; NATHAN PHILLIPS, JR.,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    JAMES BAXTER HUNT, JR.; MACK JARVIS; DANIEL
    STIENKE; RUBY S. BRANDON; J. V. TURLINGTON,
    a/k/a Jack; RANNY FUTRELL; R. R. RIVENBARK;
    JAMES BYRUM; TRACY LEE UNDERWOOD; D. WALKER;
    SERGEANT CORBETT-MOORE; S. MURPHY; DAVID
    SOMEESE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, PHIPPS; S.
    COLLINS; ELLIS SINGLETARY; CARL W. CRAVEN, II;
    JOSEPH LABELL; SERGEANT SUTTON; D. LEWIS;
    JULIE MORSE; T. THELMA SMITH; MICHAEL T. W.
    BELL; W. THOMPSON; JOANNE WISE; MICHAEL
    EDWARDS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER
    STEWART;
    LIEUTENANT
    AUTRY; GEROTHA R. SPAIN; J. BAKER WILLIAMS;
    JACKIE BANNERMAN; RAY KRYNICKI; ROOSEVELT
    STRICKLAND; AGNES J. ALLER, Nurse; CATHY S.
    DIXON,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CA-98-691-F)

    Submitted:

    March 9, 2000

    Decided:

    March 15, 2000

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Shaw filed this interlocutory appeal after the district
    court dismissed some of his claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.
    1983 (West Supp. 1999) as frivolous.

    The district court allowed

    several of Shaws claims to proceed and directed him to particularize several other claims.

    In response, Shaw filed an amended

    complaint in the district court.

    In a separate order, the court

    again dismissed some of Shaws claims as frivolous and allowed several others to proceed.

    Shaw appeals both district court orders.

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the


    orders are not appealable.

    This court may exercise jurisdiction

    only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders, see 28 U.S.C. 1292 (1994);
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337
    U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders
    nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
    We therefore 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