Edgerton v. Franklin Cnty Jail ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-7833
    JAMES R. EDGERTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL; SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN
    COUNTY; EARNEST H. SMITH, Chief Jailer,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-94-327-5-H)
    Submitted:   January 18, 1996             Decided:   February 8, 1996
    Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James R. Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III,
    WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appel-
    lant's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's denial of Appel-
    lant's motion to amend his complaint. Appellee has moved to dismiss
    this appeal. We grant the motion and 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. § 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.
    We grant the Appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal as
    interlocutory. * Consequently, we also deny Appellant's petition for
    review of an order. We deny Appellant's motion for 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
    *
    We also note that in addition to being interlocutory, this
    appeal is also untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-7833

Filed Date: 2/8/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021