Anthony Harris v. R.L. Foy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [998709058-2]. Originating case number: 5:09-ct-03124-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998726047]. Mailed to: Anthony Harris. [11-7171]

Appeal: 11-7171

Document: 19

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7171

ANTHONY RAY HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R.L. FOY, Deputy; RALEIGH
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

POLICE

DEPARTMENT;

WAKE

COUNTY

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03124-FL)

Submitted:

November 15, 2011

Decided:

November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Ray Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
John Albert Maxfield,
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Hunt Kang Choi, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7171

Document: 19

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Anthony

Ray

Harris

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing the Raleigh Police Department from his
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

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
motion

for

release

jurisdiction.

and

dismiss

The order Harris seeks

order

nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we deny Harris’
the

appeal

for

lack

of

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