Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Dana S. Graham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph William Kaestner; Janie L. Edmonds; Medford W. Howard; Joan Williams; Iva R. Purdy; Joel G. Clarke; James M. Lumpkin; Robert C. Burkholder, Jr.; Linwood T. Wells, Jr.; Thomas N. Nance, Defendants-Appellees, and Theodore N.I. Tondrowski; Christopher Hackman, Defendants., 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (October 22, 1992)

Docket number: 92-6798
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37481965
Id. vLex: VLEX-37481965

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Dana S. Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Harry Margerum Johnson, Jr., Stacy F. Garrett, III, Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, Richmond, Virginia; Deborah Shea O'Toole, Cowan & Owen, Richmond, Virginia; Lee Melchor, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph William Kaestner, Kaestner, Spieth & Gays, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dana S. Graham appeals from the district court's order dismissing claims against nine of eleven defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 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

Other documents:
little v. the state., 133 ga. app. 304, 211 s.e.2d 197 (1974) | National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. New Pines, Inc., Respondent., 468 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir. 1972) | roger g gousse petitioner v john ashcroft attorney general respondent. 339 f.3d 91 2nd cir ... | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Barcelona Cataluna Sala de lo Social of May 1... | Resolucion del Organismo Autonomo Fondo de Explotacion de los Servicios de Cria Caballar y Remonta por la que se anu... | Edicto (865/2006). | EDICTO del Ayuntamiento de Llers, sobre adjudicación de un contrato de obr... | EDICTO del Ayuntamiento de Polinyà de corrección de errata en el Anuncio de 12 de marzo de 1993 DOGC ... | Entscheidung der Kommission vom 20. November 2001 uber eine achte Verlangerung der Geltungsdauer der Entscheidung 1999/815/EG uber Manahm... | RESOLUCION de 16 de diciembre de 1997 de la Dirección General de Tecnología e Infraestructuras Deport... | Servicio Canario de Empleo.- Resolucion de 11 de septiembre de 2008 del Director por la que se r... | Ataques contra un batzoki y la Subdelegación del Gobierno en Vitoria | 22.00 / TVE-1 Ana y los 7 vuelve a la programacion