U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1992

E. Z. Bell v. Gary T. Dixon Captain Godfrey Kenneth Harris Officer West John Doe Grievance Commission

E. Z. Bell v. Gary T. Dixon Captain Godfrey Kenneth Harris Officer West John Doe Grievance Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 6, 1992
972 F.2d 338; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26831; 1992 WL 187258 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

E. Z. Bell v. Gary T. Dixon Captain Godfrey Kenneth Harris Officer West John Doe Grievance Commission

Opinion

972 F.2d 338

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
E. Z. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Gary T. DIXON; Captain Godfrey; Kenneth Harris; Officer
West; John Doe; Grievance Commission,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6545.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 6, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-311-CRT-F)

E. Z. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Ronna Dawn Gibbs, North Carolina Department of Justice; Neil Clark Dalton, North Carolina Department of Correction, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

Dismissed.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

E. Z. Bell appeals the district court's order denying summary judgment on one claim and granting relief to the Defendants on another claim in Bell's federal civil rights action. 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.