Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Charles Willingham v. Lynn Summers, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Transféré par

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 vues2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Willingham's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Willingham, a North Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that waived payment of his initial filing fee and directed the correctional institution to withhold and transmit partial payments toward the filing fee. However, the court determined that the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Description originale:

    Filed: 2013-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6160

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Willingham's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Willingham, a North Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that waived payment of his initial filing fee and directed the correctional institution to withhold and transmit partial payments toward the filing fee. However, the court determined that the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Public Domain
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    4 vues2 pages

    Charles Willingham v. Lynn Summers, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Transféré par

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Willingham's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Willingham, a North Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that waived payment of his initial filing fee and directed the correctional institution to withhold and transmit partial payments toward the filing fee. However, the court determined that the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Public Domain
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6160

    CHARLES D. WILLINGHAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    LYNN SUMMERS, Supt. Hoke CI; G. CRUTCHFIELD, Asst. Programs
    Hoke CI; K. STAND BACK, Asst. Hoke CI; SMITH, Medical Dept.
    Hoke CI; ROY COOPER, Gen.; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Dir. Chief,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00336-RJC)

    Submitted:

    April 18, 2013

    Decided:

    April 26, 2013

    Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles D. Willingham, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    D.

    Willingham,

    North

    Carolina

    prisoner,

    seeks to appeal the district courts order waiving payment of an


    initial

    partial

    correctional
    payments

    filing

    institution

    toward

    the

    fee
    to

    filing

    and

    directing

    withhold
    fee.

    and

    This

    Willinghams

    transmit

    court

    partial

    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, 545-47 (1949).
    seeks

    to

    appeal

    is

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.


    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    The order Willingham

    order

    nor

    an

    appealable

    Accordingly, we dismiss the

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi