Townes v. City of Baltimore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6246
VICTOR TOWNES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF BALTIMORE; UNKNOWN BALTIMORE CITY UNI-
FORM, and Possible Plainclothes Police Offi-
cers and their Superiors; UNKNOWN BALTIMORE
FIRE & AMBULANCE SERVICE ATTENDANTS; UNKNOWN
FIELD DIRECTORS OF THE BALTIMORE F.B.I.
OFFICE; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
UNKNOWN BALTIMORE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER;
UNKNOWN COMMISSIONER FOR THE BALTIMORE CITY
FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES; VAUGHN FOREMAN,
Trooper; SAMUEL N. WICHNER, Special Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-
95-3529-WMN)
Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 13, 1997
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor Townes, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Charles Derr, Assistant
City Solicitor, William Rowe Phelan, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY
SOLICITOR, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Duane Anthony
Verderaime, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland;
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland;
Donald E. Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals a district court order dismissing some, but
not all, parties from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. We dis-
miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is non-
dispositive as to the entire action and therefore not appealable.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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