Lopez v. Young , 53 F. App'x 280 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7463
JOSE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG; RICHARD PHILLIPS; BUCHANAN,
Correctional Officer; MCCURRY, R.N.; YATES,
Major; YEARY, Counselor; BELLAMY, Correctional
Officer; COLLINS, Sergeant; JACKSON,
Correctional Officer; BERRY, R.N.; DR. OHAI;
THOMAS, R.N.; LESTER, Lieutenant; DR. SMITH;
BENTLEY, Sergeant; ANDERSON, Sergeant; F.
WILLIS, Investigator; T. JOHNSON, Medical
Director; BAKER, Counselor; DR. STATER;
MULLINS, R.N.; BLILEY, Correctional Officer;
KISER, Correctional Officer; MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT; GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT; R. A. YOUNG,
Regional Director; INSTITUTIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS, Wallens Ridge State Prison;
FLEMINGS, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-876)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Dana L. Gay, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lopez, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s
order denying his request for discovery, denying his motion for a
default judgment, and dismissing without prejudice his claims
against some but not all of the Defendants on his complaint brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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(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 appealed from is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We deny Lopez’s motion to lift the district court’s stay of
proceedings pending resolution of this appeal. 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
3