Court Opinion

ID: 548581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:07:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:30.372066
License: Public Domain

914 F.2d 1493Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jeffrey P. RIDDLE, a/k/a Jeffrey P. Riddel, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-7054.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 1990.Decided Sept. 25, 1990.Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.  John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge.  (CR No. 88-17-NN;  C/A No. 89-174-NN).
Jeffrey P. Riddle, appellant pro se.
Harvey Lee Bryant, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va., for appellee.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:

1
Jeffrey P. Riddle appeals the district court's failure to respond to his motion for clarification.  We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

2
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders.  A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties.  It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment."   Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

3
The district court has not ruled on Riddle's motion and its failure to rule is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.  The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the district court's lack of action appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 or the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

4
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, 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