United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 2

920 F.

2d 926
Unpublished Disposition

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unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth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.
Gregory H. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charles CREECY, Aaron Johnson, Sgt. Wiggins, Lieutenant
Evans, Frank Evans, Lieutenant Ellis, Danny
Thompson, John Patseavouras, Herbert
Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-7052.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted Dec. 3, 1990.
Decided Dec. 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-89-170CRT)
Gregory H. Jones, appellant pro se.
E.D.N.C.
DISMISSED.
Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Gregory H. Jones appeals the district court's dismissal of one of his suits,
previously joined with another of Jones' cases. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 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).

As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 1292. Finally, the order is not
appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny leave to proceed in forma


pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Jones' motion for
appointment of counsel and 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.

Because Jones' two separate complaints were consolidated, the dismissal of


only one of the complaints is not a final order of dismissal. See Ringwald v.
Harris, 675 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1982)

You might also like