Court Opinion

ID: 8438976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 17:07:17.294851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:46.775015
License: Public Domain

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James D. Tinsley seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Tinsley seeks to appeal is neither a final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.