U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1995

Kyle v. Johnson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 17, 1995

50 F.3d 6; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11393; 1995 WL 111306 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Opinion

50 F.3d 6

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Felix Augustus KYLE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Aaron JOHNSON, Former Secretary of the North Carolina
Department of Corrections; Franklin Freeman, Secretary of
the North Carolina Department of Corrections; Joe Hamilton,
Former Director, Division of Prisons; Lynn Phillips,
Director, Division of Prisons; All State Department of
Corrections Personnel At The Caledonia Correctional
Institution; The Hoke Correctional Institution; The Craggy
Correctional Center; The Alexander Correctional Center;
All Personnel In The North Carolina Department of
Corrections, In their Official Capacities, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7267.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided: Feb. 17, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-41)

Felix Augustus Kyle, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. The court also denied reconsideration. The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable at this time. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); 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.

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