Muhammad v. Hudson ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-6369
    ISMAIL MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Wayne Anthony Garrett,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. ALVIN HUDSON, Sheriff, Roanoke City Jail;
    M. MCMILLAN, Major; D. A. BLEVINS, Captain; R.
    D. ADKINS, Lieutenant; SERGEANT RATLIFF; SER-
    GEANT HULL; SERGEANT STUART; LEO B. WATKINS,
    Sergeant; TRAVIS CURTIS, Deputy; JAMES TROUT,
    Deputy; THE CITY OF ROANOKE, Virginia; CORREC-
    TIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE; CATHY WILLIAMS; KAREN
    MILLER, M.D.; CHUCK JENNINGS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge;
    Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1231-R)
    Submitted:   November 20, 1997            Decided:   December 9, 1997
    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ismail Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Rider, RIDER, THOMAS,
    CLEAVELAND, FERRIS & EAKIN, Roanoke, Virginia; David Ernest
    Boelzner, Michael Lawrence Goodman, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER &
    TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying
    his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-
    able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949). The order here
    appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
    or collateral order.
    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-6369

Filed Date: 12/9/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014