Page v. Padula ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6903
    ALBERT D. PAGE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    A. J. PADULA, Warden; ROBERT WARD, Directional Divisional
    Operations;   JOHN   BROOKS,   Associate   Warden; JENNIFER
    LIVINGSTON, Correctional Officer; JON OZMINT, Director; RON
    CRIBB, Captain; GENNA CAIN, Officer; MS. SIMON, mailroom
    personnel at Lee Correctional Institution,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    MS.   WHITNEY,      mailroom    personnel     at   Lee   Correctional
    Institution,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.       Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
    Judge. (9:08-cv-01660-HFF-BM)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2009               Decided:   December 2, 2009
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Albert D. Page, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
    LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Albert D. Page seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district
    court’s order denying, inter alia, Page’s motions for orders
    granting him leave to depose correctional officers and prison
    inmates   and   compelling   the   production   of   various   documents.
    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949).             The order
    Page 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-6903

Filed Date: 12/2/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014