Court Opinion

ID: 2962806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:02:13.532435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:39.537124
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1304                                     ERIC DAVIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.               NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CLASSIFICATION                                      BOARD, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Eric Davis on brief pro se.            __________            Jeffrey  R.  Howard,   Attorney  General,  and  Lucy  C.   Hodder,            ___________________                             _________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                  September 2, 1994                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Because  the order  from which  plaintiff                 ___________            seeks to appeal is not  a "final decision" under 28  U.S.C.              1291, because no certification under  28 U.S.C.   1292(b) has            been granted,  and because  no other basis  for interlocutory            appeal  exists,   the  appeal   is  dismissed  for   lack  of            jurisdiction.                   Dismissed.                 __________