Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

996 F.2d 1211

Docket No. 93-6294.

Jordan v. Stroble

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 7, 1993. Decided: June 24, 1993.

This page is marked noindex.

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably Clem v. Corbeau (2002), Randy Allen Orga Dusty Stanaway v. Preston S. Williams, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of York County (1993)

28 federal appellate ·

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1993-06-24

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-90-1717-3-18H)

William J. Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

John Berkley Grimball, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; James Albert Stuckey, Jr., Stuckey & Kobrovsky, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

William J. Jordan appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the federal Defendants, but not disposing of the claims with regard to the state Defendants. 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.s 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); 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.

¶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

/996/f2d/1211 · .json · Public domain