Williams v. Bluefield Daily Tele ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2524
JAMES E. WILLIAMS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BLUEFIELD DAILY TELEGRAPH/TIMES & ALLEGHANIAN
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DOUGLAS J. HANDZEL, as Executor of the Estate
of Emil J. Handzel; VIOLET L. HANDZEL; SMITH &
LILLY; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, the last names
being fictitious and intended for persons or
corporations having an interest in the
premises affected herein, unknown to the
plaintiff,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District
Judge. (CA-94-510-1)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Williams, II, for Appellant. James R. Sheatsley, GORMAN,
SHEATSLEY & COMPANY, L.C., Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals a district court order granting in part and
denying in part motions for summary judgment and dismissal. We
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 dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
2
3