Jackson v. Wahlgren

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jackson v. Wahlgren

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2714

IDA M. JACKSON; VENUS O. JACKSON; AARON P. JACKSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SUSAN WAHLGREN, formerly known as S. R. Hollinger, Trooper, Maryland State Police,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MARYLAND STATE POLICE; LARRY W. TOLLIVER, Colonel, Superintendent, Maryland State Po- lice; D. B. MACLEAN, 1st Lieutenant Commander; SERGEANT CASPER; OFFICER GOLDMAN; OFFICER LASSIE; OFFICER HOUSE; OFFICER NORDSTRAM; J. O. HAMMELMANN, Major, above defendants individually and collectively,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Cumberland. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-93-2504-DKC)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 2 Ida M. Jackson, Venus O. Jackson, Aaron P. Jackson, Appellants Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Mary- land; Betty Stemley Sconion, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly Elizabeth Rice, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikes- ville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appel-

lant's "Motion to Stop Stalker," motion for summary judgment, and motion for a protective order. 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

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1994); 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

3 4

Reference

Status
Unpublished