Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0106-01.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

Paul SCINTO, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Edward Glenn PRESTON; Ralph Melton, Jr., Frank Polumbo; Brian Lemay; Eric Wing; E&J Automotive, et al; The City of New Bern, North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-6207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 27, 2007.
    Decided: July 13, 2007.
    Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Carlton Thornton, Sarah Lynne Ford, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary Hamilton Clemmons, Chesnutt, Clemmons & Peacock, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Scinto, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing certain defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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 orders Scinto seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Defendants’ motion to stay and Scinto’s motions to consolidate and to strike. 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.