Hosch v. NC Industrial Comm
Hosch v. NC Industrial Comm
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1104
CLAUDE HOSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; BANDAG, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 96-1135
CLAUDE HOSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRANVILLE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; CHEMICAL RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; BANDAG, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-94-91-MC-5, CA-94-95-MC-5) Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996
Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
No. 96-1104 affirmed and No. 96-1135 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claude Hosch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: In No. 96-1104, the Appellant, Claude Hosch, appeals the district court's order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988), all Defendants in a civil suit for monetary damages arising from the denial of worker's compensation and foreclosure upon his home. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hosch v. NC Industrial Comm., No. CA-94-91-MC-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 1995).
In No. 96-1135, Hosch appeals the district court's order dismissing some but not all of the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988) in another civil suit for monetary damages arising from the same set of circumstances. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1 and certain inter- locutory and collateral orders.2 The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 96-1135 as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 96-1104, AFFIRMED No. 96-1135, DISMISSED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.