Hankins v. Jordan

Filing 920061121


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7027 FREEMAN L. HANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CONNIE JORDAN; BRUNSWICK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BRUNSWICK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; REX GORE; CHRISTOPHER B. GENTRY; DAWN H. FRANCISCO; ADRAIN IAPALUCCI; GRIFFIN ANDERSON; TONY MICHEALKIS, Doctor; THOMAS J. DAVID, Doctor; MARTA BROWN, Doctor; YVONNE M. KING; CHRIS THOMAS; M. BOWEN, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00390-BO) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing some of his claims as frivolous in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action. over final orders, This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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). order nor The order Hankins seeks to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. grant Hankins' motions to amend his informal brief and deny his motions to appoint counsel, to amend his complaint for summary judgment and "to file 28 U.S.C. 1331." 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?