Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

948 F.2d 1280

Docket No. 91-1167.

Stephen R. Austin v. Anthony M. Franks, Postmaster General

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Oct. 2, 1991. Decided Nov. 18, 1991.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-11-18

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1991 · most notably Herman Davis v. Michael W. Cox Commonwealth of Virginia (1991), Elizabeth Goggin, Individually and as of the Estate of Melbourne A. Goggin v. United Insurance Company of America (1991)

24 federal appellate ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Catlin v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-11-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CA-91-79)

Stephen R. Austin, appellant pro se.

Kevin Barclay Rachel, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, N.C., for appellee.

W.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Stephen R. Austin appeals the district court's order denying appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988) 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. § 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. § 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 dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶5

DISMISSED.

/948/f2d/1280 · .json · Public domain