McClain v. NC Dept of Corr ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7918
BART FITZGERALD MCCLAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Avery-Mitchell Facility; OFFICER FOX; OFFICER
EDWARDS; CODY BLAKE STEWART, Correctional
Officer; BRUCE C. CARPENTER, Correctional
Officer; JAY CARTER, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MARTY LOUDERMILK, Detective; CHRIS WARREN,
Detective at Alexander County Sheriff’s
Department,
Defendants.
No. 01-7999
BART FITZGERALD MCCLAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Avery-Mitchell Facility; OFFICER FOX; OFFICER
EDWARDS; CODY BLAKE STEWART, Correctional
Officer; BRUCE C. CARPENTER, Correctional
Officer; JAY CARTER, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MARTY LOUDERMILK, Detective; CHRIS WARREN,
Detective at Alexander County Sheriff’s
Department,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-20-1-MU-2)
Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton,
Assistant Attorney General, James Philip Allen, Roy Cooper, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing fewer than all the claims and parties in McClain’s
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)
(No. 01-7918), and dismissing McClain’s “Motion to Show Cause For
the Removal of Counsel” (No. 01-7999). We dismiss the appeals for
lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. 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 orders here appealed
are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders.
We dismiss the appeals 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
3