Michael Timmons v. Bill Oldham, et al
Per Curiam OPINION filed to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction (non-appealable order), decision not for publication. Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge; Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge and Joseph M. Hood, U.S. District Judge, EDKY.
NOT FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0358n.06
Apr 10, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BILL OLDHAM; SHELBY COUNTY;
SERGEANT C. ALLEN, Officer; OFFICER J.
PORTER; OFFICER D. MAY; CCS
SERVICES; JOHN AND JANE DOES,
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. This matter is before the court upon initial consideration to determine
whether this appeal was taken from an appealable order.
The documents before the court indicate that Michael Timmons filed a civil rights complaint
against Shelby County, Tennessee, and several of its police officers. During the course of the
litigation, Timmons filed a motion to request the issuance of a subpoena. On January 17, 2013, the
magistrate judge denied the motion without prejudice for Timmons’s failure to consult with
opposing counsel before filing the motion, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a). Thereafter, Timmons filed
another motion to request the issuance of a subpoena, which the magistrate judge construed as a
renewal of his previous motion, and a motion to alter or amend the January 17, 2013, order. On
The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
-2February 21, 2013, the magistrate judge denied Timmons’s renewed motion for the issuance of a
subpoena without prejudice because he still failed to adhere to the local rules before filing the
motion. The magistrate judge determined that the motion to alter or amend was premature because
Timmons’s subpoena motion had been denied without prejudice. On March 5, 2013, Timmons filed
a notice of appeal from the February 21, 2013, order.
The February 21, 2013, order did not dispose of all of the claims or parties involved in this
action and did not direct entry of a final appealable judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742–45 (1976); Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins.
Co., 782 F.2d 58, 59–60 (6th Cir. 1986). Nor was the February 21, 2013, order an immediately
appealable “collateral order” under the doctrine announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). Finally, the district court has not entered its final decision during the pendency
of this appeal. Therefore, appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked over this interlocutory appeal
from the district court’s partial decision. See Gillis v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 759
F.2d 565, 569 (6th Cir. 1985).
It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
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?