Harksen v. Hale

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Harksen v. Hale

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7150

ROBB M. HARKSEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. HALE, ROSP; J. ARMENTROUT, Operations; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; S. SHORTRIDGE, Operations Officer; D. A. BRAXTON; MAJOR FLEMING; GENE JOHNSON, Deputy Director; C/O HICKS; A. HARVEY, Assistant Warden of Operations; MAJOR YATES; T. MONK, Counselor; S. K. YOUNG, Warden; CAPTAIN FLEMING; T. WOODS; COUNSELOR EVANS; C/O MULLINS; C/O VANOVER; C/O YOUNCE; SERGEANT PHILLIPS; G. DEEL; M. C. MULLINS; R. ROSE; M. HENSLEY, Treatment Program Supervisor; L. HUFFMAN, Regional Director; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT; COUNSELOR KEGLEY; LIEUTENANT LEWIS, Counselor; K. MCCOY; MS. LAWSON; MS. LAWSON; COUNSELOR JESSEE; J. FANIN; H. DUNCAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-653-7-jct-mfu)

Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robb M. Harksen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Robb M. Harksen seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order: (1) denying his motion to amend his complaint; (2) splitting

the case into four separate law suits; and (3) staying

consideration of Harksen’s claims under the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp.,

337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order Harksen seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished