Court Opinion

ID: 552499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:08:36+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:58.491722
License: Public Domain

920 F.2d 926Unpublished 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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Gregory H. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Charles CREECY, Aaron Johnson, Sgt. Wiggins, LieutenantEvans, Frank Evans, Lieutenant Ellis, DannyThompson, John Patseavouras, HerbertWilliams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-7052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 1990.Decided Dec. 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  W. Earl Britt, District Judge.  (CA-89-170-CRT)
Gregory H. Jones, appellant pro se.
E.D.N.C.
DISMISSED.
Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
Gregory H. Jones appeals the district court's dismissal of one of his suits, previously joined with another of Jones' cases.  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
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it 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 order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292.  Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

4
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.  We deny Jones' motion for appointment of counsel 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.

5
DISMISSED.

*
 Because Jones' two separate complaints were consolidated, the dismissal of only one of the complaints is not a final order of dismissal.   See Ringwald v. Harris, 675 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1982)