Case Name: Thomas S. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank DIMAIO, M.D., Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee, State of NY Grievance Comm. 10th Judicial District, Cross-Defendant, Daniel Buttafuoco & Associates, Providence Washington Insurance Company, Cross-Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-27
Citations: 29 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: Docket No. 01-7185
Parties: Thomas S. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank DIMAIO, M.D., Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee, State of NY Grievance Comm. 10th Judicial District, Cross-Defendant, Daniel Buttafuoco & Associates, Providence Washington Insurance Company, Cross-Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 29
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
Thomas S. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank DIMAIO, M.D., Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee, State of NY Grievance Comm. 10th Judicial District, Cross-Defendant, Daniel Buttafuoco & Associates, Providence Washington Insurance Company, Cross-Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 01-7185.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2002.
Thomas S. Hammer, Garden City, NY, pro se, on submission.
Kenneth MerBer, Callan, Regenstreich, Koster & Brady, New York, NY, for Appellee.
Present LEVAL, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District Judge.
Honorable Sidney H. Stein, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal be and it hereby is DISMISSED.
Thomas S. Hammer appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying his motion for default judgment on his claims alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. An order denying default judgment is not appealable because it is neither a final order, nor an interlocutory order that we are permitted to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's order.