Anthony Lloyd v. Garrett Glennon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-02160-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000297538]. Mailed to: Anthony Lloyd. [18-6087]
Appeal: 18-6087
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/21/2018
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6087
ANTHONY LLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GARRETT GLENNON, Deputy State’s Attorney for Baltimore County, Maryland;
J. PHILIP MORGAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC.; CONTAH NIMELY, M.D.; LORI
SLAVICK, P.A.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-02160-JKB)
Submitted: May 17, 2018
Decided: May 21, 2018
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Appeal: 18-6087
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/21/2018
Pg: 2 of 3
Anthony Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 18-6087
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/21/2018
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lloyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action against some, but not all, 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 Lloyd 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
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?