Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0333-01.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

Mark CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diana CARMACK; Ms. Atkins; Ms. Bollot; Dr. Cervie; Sargeant Bailey; Officer Barnes; Howard Adams, Defendants-Appellees, and Pitt County; Wilson County, Defendants. Mark Corrigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. Atkins; Ms. Bollot; Dr. Cervie; Sargeant Bailey; Officer Barnes; Howard Adams; Diana Carmack; Katharina Dewald, Defendants-Appellees, and Pitt County; Wilson County, Defendants.
    Nos. 00-6534, 00-7611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.
    Decided March 19, 2001.
    Mark, Corrigan, pro se. Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr., Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, Raleigh, NC; JoAnne Keeler Burgdorff, Pitt County Legal Department, Greenville, NC; Tommy Willis Jarrett, Dees, Smith, Powell, Jarrett, Dees & Jones, Goldsboro, NC; John Dale Madden, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, Raleigh, NC; G. Christopher Olson, Christopher W. Jones, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s order, which accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected it in part, granting summary judgment in favor of all but one of the Defendants named in Corrigan’s action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000), and the order denying without prejudice Corrigan’s motion for reconsideration (No. 00-7611). Corrigan also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the complaint and to appoint an expert witness (No. 00-6534). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We deny the motion to strike Corrigan’s informal reply brief and 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.