50 F3d 9 Williams v. A Lanham

50 F.3d 9

Floyd Glenn WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections; Sewall
Smith, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary and Maryland
Correctional Adjustment Center; William Filbert, Assistant
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Joseph Wilson, Assistant
Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center; Theodore
Purnell, Security Chief, Maryland Penitentiary and Maryland
Correctional Adjustment Center; Unknown Mail Room Workers,
Maryland Penitentiary; Unknown Mail Room Workers, Maryland
Correctional Adjustment Center; Jane Doe, Doctor's
Personnel, Maryland Penitentiary; John Doe, Doctor's
Personnel, Maryland Penitentiary; Jane Doe, Doctor's
Personnel, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center; John
Doe, Doctor's Personnel, Maryland Correctional Adjustment
Center; Brian J. Murphy, Attorney; Dennis M. Henderson,
Public Defender; Sherrie B. Glasser, Public Defender;
Bradford C. Peabody, Public Defender; Anne Marie Gering,
Public Defender; Maureen Lamasnry, Public Defender;
Clayton Aarons, Public Defender, Joseph Casula, Judge;
Audrey E. Melbourne, Judge; Richard Sothoron, Judge;
Vivian Jenkins, Clerk of Court for the Circuit Court of
Prince George County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7321.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided March 20, 1995.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94-2746-L)

Floyd Glenn Williams, appellant pro se.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Advertisement
view counter
1

Appellant appeals the district court's dismissal of his claims against eleven of twenty-two defendants brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. 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 Industrial 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