Case ID: f-appx_16/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bernard A. TENSLEY-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Virginia Department of Corrections; Doctor Ulep; Jo Ann McCarthy; CMS-Correctional Medical Service, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-7074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2001.
    
      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).
    Bernard A. Tensley-Bey, pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Joseph Patrick Callahan, Rawls & McNelis, P.C., Richmond, VA, for appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Bernard A. Tensley-Bey appeals the district court’s 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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 court's November 27, 2000 order, that appeal would be similarly interlocutory.