Court Opinion

ID: 666141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-16 15:14:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:29.299169
License: Public Domain

19 F.3d 1430
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Daniel Marion SCHROYER, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.E.C. MORRIS;  W.P. Rogers;  James A. Smith;  Ms. Rowelett;Ms. Wilkerson;  E.B. Wright;  L.T. Lester;  MarciOrnales;  F. Kafka, Ms.;  Mr. Kline;Lynn Armentrout, SheriffDefendants Appellees.
No. 94-6027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 1994.Decided March 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.  Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.  (CA-93-1100)
Daniel Marion Schroyer, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
Appellant appeals from the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint.  We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.   See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir.1993).  This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988);  Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b);   Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.  Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).  The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2
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