Jeffrey Edwards v. Carey Winder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03184-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999514107]. [14-7363]

Appeal: 14-7363

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7363

JEFFREY EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MAJOR GREENFIELD; LT. SCOTT; OFFICER CARCIRIERI; MIKE COX,
Lieutenant; CHRIS WORTH, Lieutenant; CHUCK ARNOLD, Sargent;
SHERIFF LARRY M. PIERCE; DR. CLEMENT L. MCCASKILL,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CAREY WINDERS, Sheriff,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03184-FL)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey
Edwards,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Christopher
John
Derrenbacher, PATTERSON DILTHEY, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Joseph Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for

Appeal: 14-7363

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7363

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions
to

dismiss.

This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).

A final order is one that disposes of all issues in

dispute as to all parties.

It “ends the litigation on the

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.”

Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

The order Edwards seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3