U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2002

Lebon v. Kupec

Lebon v. Kupec
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 11, 2002

Lebon v. Kupec

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7783

JOHN LEBON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; MARYLAND PAROLE COM- MISSION; STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED; ROBERT ABBOTT, Dr., D.D.S.; J. E. BROWN, Dr., D.D.S.; RICHARD WARD, Dr.; A. B. CORBIN, L.P.N.; ROB ALDERMAN, P.A., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3748-AW)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lebon, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald Joseph Crawford, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, P.C., Rockville, Maryland; Kristin L. Kremer, MASON, KETTERMAN & CAWOOD, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John Lebon appeals the district court’s order quashing an earlier show cause order and requiring defendant EMSA Correctional Care, Inc. to file a status report regarding the actions taken to alleviate the health care claims enumerated by Lebon in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. 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

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