Eddie Murphy v. Officer Leroy Conrad
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00246-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Christopher Michael Balaban; Joseph Barry Chazen; Eddie Murphy. [17-6515]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
OFFICER LEROY CONRAD, CO II; OFFICER DEAN W. ROUNDS, SR., CO II;
OFFICER SHAWN MURRAY, CO II; OFFICER KEVAN WHETSTONE, CO II;
COLIN OTTEY, M.D.; JENNIFER GILES, R.N. at WCI,
Defendants – Appellees,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Party-in-Interest – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00246-GJH)
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Decided: June 23, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Eddie Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, Dorianne Avery Meloy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, Christopher Michael Balaban,
Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA,
Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Eddie Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Officer Leroy Conrad, CO II; Officer Dean W. Rounds, Sr., CO II; Officer
Shawn Murray, CO II; and Officer Kevan Whetstone, CO II; the action remains pending
as to two other Defendants. 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 Murphy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th
Cir. 2015). 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.
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?