U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Reedy v. Allen

Reedy v. Allen
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 28, 1996

Reedy v. Allen

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7812

DAVEY JAMES REEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; JAMES S. GILMORE, III; RONALD J. ANGELONE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1359-AM)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davey James Reedy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals a district court order dismissing his com- plaint without prejudice for lack of an allegation of harm and an order denying reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's "Motion for Supplement" and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

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