Eddie Murphy v. Officer Leroy Conrad , 692 F. App'x 147 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6515
    EDDIE MURPHY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    OFFICER LEROY CONRAD, CO II; OFFICER DEAN W. ROUNDS, SR., CO II;
    OFFICER SHAWN MURRAY, CO II; OFFICER KEVAN WHETSTONE, CO II;
    COLIN OTTEY, M.D.; JENNIFER GILES, R.N. at WCI,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
    Party-in-Interest – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00246-GJH)
    Submitted: June 20, 2017                                        Decided: June 23, 2017
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eddie Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
    General, Baltimore, Maryland, Dorianne Avery Meloy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, Christopher Michael Balaban,
    Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA,
    Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Eddie Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary
    judgment to Officer Leroy Conrad, CO II; Officer Dean W. Rounds, Sr., CO II; Officer
    Shawn Murray, CO II; and Officer Kevan Whetstone, CO II; the action remains pending
    as to two other Defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
    28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
    § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949). The order Murphy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 
    803 F.3d 694
    , 696 (4th
    Cir. 2015). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6515

Citation Numbers: 692 F. App'x 147

Judges: Shedd, Wynn, Diaz

Filed Date: 6/23/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024