Karim Abdul Akbar v. P.E.R.T. Officers

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-ct-03233-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999514034]. Mailed to: Akbar. [14-7525]

Appeal: 14-7525

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7525

KARIM ABDUL AKBAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
P.E.R.T. OFFICERS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JOYCE
KORNEGAY,
Commander;
Superintendent
of
Programs;
Superintendent of Custody,

MR.
JOHNNY

MOBELY,
HAWKINS,

Assistant
Assistant

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-ct-03233-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appeal: 14-7525

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7525

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Karim Abdul Akbar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order directing the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action

to

respond

to

his

amended

motion

for

holding in abeyance the motions for discovery.

discovery

and

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, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

order

nor

The order Akbar
an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss the

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