Bailey-El v. Corcoran ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6786
    RONALD G. BAILEY-EL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; JAMES SMITH, Security
    Chief,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
    00-803-DKC)
    Submitted:   July 24, 2003                 Decided:   July 31, 2003
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald G. Bailey-El, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald G. Bailey-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his claims filed under the Civil Rights Act, 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
       (2000),   and       the   Religious   Land   Use   and
    Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5
    (West Supp. 2003).    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).
    Although the district court administratively closed Bailey-El’s
    case when it consolidated his case with those filed by other
    inmates, his co-plaintiffs’ actions are still pending.            Only once
    those claims have been adjudicated may this court assert appellate
    jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 
    685 F.2d 912
    , 913
    (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that order not final if it disposes of
    “fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer
    than all the parties”). 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6786

Judges: Michael, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/31/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024