U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1997

Townes v. City of Baltimore

Townes v. City of Baltimore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 4, 1997

Townes v. City of Baltimore

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1065

VICTOR TOWNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF BALTIMORE; UNKNOWN BALTIMORE CITY UNI- FORM, and Possible Plainclothes Police Offi- cers and their Superiors; UNKNOWN BALTIMORE FIRE & AMBULANCE SERVICE ATTENDANTS; UNKNOWN FIELD DIRECTORS OF THE BALTIMORE F.B.I.

OFFICE; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN BALTIMORE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER; UNKNOWN COMMISSIONER FOR THE BALTIMORE CITY FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES; VAUGHN FOREMAN, Trooper; SAMUEL N. WICHNER, Special Agent, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-3529-WMN) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Townes, Appellant Pro Se. William Rowe Phelan, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Duane A. Verderaime, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals two district court orders dismissing only certain parties from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are non- dispositive and therefore 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 orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

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.