110 F3d 60 Maney v. Graham Mac L Edmisten Y

110 F.3d 60

Pam MANEY; Wanda B. Bradley; Judy Williamson; Janet P.
Frye; William Jones; Wallace C. Leatherwood,
INCORPORATED; Curtis Hawkins, Plaintiffs,
James GRAHAM, Individually and in his capacity as North
Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture; William Edmonsson,
Individually and in his capacity as Director of the Western
North Carolina Agriculture Center; Clayton Davis; Weldon
Denny; Wayne Miller; David McLeod; Craig Glover; Wayne
Walker; Steve Mobley, Individually and in their capacities
as employees of the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture; Morris McGough, a/k/a Mac, Defendants--Appellees,
Rufus L. EDMISTEN, Individually and in his capacity as
Secretary of State of North Carolina; Betty Y. Justus,
Individually and in her capacity as Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Revenue, Defendants.

No. 96-1395.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 25, 1997
Decided March 25, 1997

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Pam Maney, Wanda B. Bradley, Judy Williamson, Janet P. Frye, William Jones, Wallace C. Leatherwood, Appellants Pro Se. Lars Franklin Nance, Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


view counter

Appellants appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss their claims for monetary relief, as well as their supplemental state law claims and various motions, but rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Appellants' claims for injunctive relief against the Appellees in their official capacities. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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.


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.