Rodney Hays v. Town of Gauley Bridge, WV ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1356
    RODNEY E. HAYS,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    TOWN OF GAULEY BRIDGE, WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia
    Municipal Corporation; WILLIAM KINCAID, individually and in
    his official capacity as Judge of the Gauley Bridge
    Municipal Court; SEAN WHIPKEY, individually and in his
    official capacity as a Town of Gauley Bridge Officer; HEATH
    WHIPKEY, individually and in his official capacity as a
    Town of Gauley Bridge Police Officer; CHARLES BURKHAMER,
    individually and in his official capacity as a Town of
    Gauley Bridge Police Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-01272)
    Submitted:   July 21, 2011                   Decided:    July 25, 2011
    Before NIEMEYER and     GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rodney E. Hays, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughn Sizemore,            BAILEY   &
    WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney E. Hays seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order granting partial summary judgment to defendants on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
          (2006)     complaint.          This     court    may    exercise
    jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006),
    and   certain    interlocutory        and       collateral    orders,       
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
    Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949).                     The order Hays 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 the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1356

Filed Date: 7/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021