Carter v. Trent, (4th Cir. 2000)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7372 FRANKLIN E. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

GEORGE TRENT; WILLIAM K. DAVIS; CINDY LARGENT;

FRANCIS HENDERSON, Doctor; WEXFORD HEALTH

SOURCES, INCORPORATED; SUBHASH GAJENDRAGADKAR,

Doctor; WILLIAM KINCAID; STEVEN BLACK; JOHN

DOE; JANE DOE, Nurses; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,

Counselors; HOWARD PAINTER; TRESA WAID; SANDY

JAYNES; ESSA ABDULLA; ROY WHITE; CORRECTIONAL

MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-

trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CA-98-146-5)

Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin E. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Kiser, WEST VIR-

GINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas

John Hurney, Jr., Karen M.R. Weber, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston,

West Virginia; David Ernest Boelzner, WRIGHT ROBINSON, OSTHIMER &

TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Franklin E. Carter appeals district court’s order adopting the reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing six of the eighteen Defendants named in this action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is 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 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

---