Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Tarpley v. Kupec, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Steven Tarpley's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Tarpley v. Kupec, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Steven Tarpley's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-09-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6679

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Steven Tarpley's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views2 pages

    Tarpley v. Kupec, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Steven Tarpley's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was neither a final order ending the case nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6679

    STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT J. KUPEC; ROBERT D. RITCHEY; MS.
    PULLER; BRUCE BOZMAN; T. MILLINER, Captain; G.
    BARNES; DR. REEVES; A. TULL, Lieutenant;
    LIEUTENANT HOLLAND; T. J. LEWIS, Officer;
    GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS; MR. NASTRI; JOHN DOE,
    Hearing Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-3461-WMN)

    Submitted:

    August 28, 2003

    Decided:

    September 4, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Steven E. Tarpley seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    This court may exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and


    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

    The order Tarpley seeks to appeal is

    neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral


    order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    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

    You might also like