Olander R. Bynum v. Katy Poole

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00960-LCB-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089165]. Mailed to: Olander R. Bynum PENDER CORRECTIONAL CENTER P. O. Box 1058 Burgaw, NC 28425-0000. [17-6100]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6100 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/26/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6100 OLANDER R. BYNUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATY POOLE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00960-LCB-JLW) Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olander R. Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6100 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/26/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Olander R. Bynum seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for compensation and for default judgment and granting the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default. 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). The order Bynum 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 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?