Fred Wilson v. B. Collin
Filing
402835762
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [998340572-2]; denying Motion for discovery [998333979-2]. Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00638-GEC-MFU. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998355657] [10-6431]
<![CDATA[
Fred Wilson v. B. Collin
Doc. 402835762
Case: 10-6431
Document: 14
Date Filed: 06/09/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6431 FRED LEWIS WILSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. B. COLLINS, Sgt.; M. WILLIAMS, C/O; H. BISHOP, C/O; J. DURHAM, C/O; SGT. KING; LT. KILBOURNE; C/O HYLTON; C/O BOYD; C/O ROBERTS; C/O TABOR; SGT. ELY; TED THOMPSON, Dr.; M. STANFORD, RN; MELISSA SPEARS, LPN; PATSY GARNETTE ZEPPA, RN; PATRICIA HILLMAN, RN, Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00638-GEC-MFU) Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Lewis Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-6431
Document: 14
Date Filed: 06/09/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Fred Lewis Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order granting partial summary judgment for Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). to appeal is or neither a final order The order Wilson seeks nor an appealable we deny
interlocutory
collateral
order.
Accordingly,
Wilson's pending motions for discovery and to amend and 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
]]>
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?
