U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Laud-Hammond v. Reger

Laud-Hammond v. Reger
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 11, 2000

Laud-Hammond v. Reger

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1648

ARCHIBALD LAUD-HAMMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MARK REGER, individually and as employee of Johnson C. Smith University; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-1718

ARCHIBALD LAUD-HAMMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MARK REGER, individually and as employee of Johnson C. Smith University; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-18-3-P)

Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 11, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Archibald Laud-Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. William Porter Farthing, Jr., Stacy Kaplan Weinberg, John Barnwell Anderson, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Archibald Laud-Hammond appeals the district court’s order dis- missing the Board of Trustees of Johnson C. Smith University from his civil action and dismissing a defamation claim as to Mark Reger. Laud-Hammond also appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion to amend his complaint. We dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 appeals as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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.