Stanley Corbett, Jr. v. G. J. Branker

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Stanley Corbett, Jr. v. G. J. Branker

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7486

STANLEY EARL CORBETT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

CHARDAN WHITEHEAD; TIJUAN WILSON; SAMUEL MCCRAE; BILLY JOE RIDDLE; JOHN DAVIS; HASEEM EVERETT; JEROME PETERS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

G. J. BRANKER; SERGEANT PRADO; OFFICER LANCASTER; OFFICER HOLLOMAN; OFFICER HICKS; OFFICER JAMES; KENNETH LASSITER; MICHAEL NORRIS; BRENT SOUCIER; ARTHUR MARSH; OFFICER OATES; OFFICER BIDWELL; MARCEL COLLEYMORE; OFFICER TYSON; OFFICER ALEXANDER,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SERGEANT REED; OFFICER MOORE; OFFICER PRESS; OFFICER SUMMERLIN; OFFICER LASSITER; JARED WELCH; BEN MORGAN; OFFICER HUNT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03201-BO)

Submitted: January 5, 2016 Decided: January 7, 2016 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Judith Maria Estevez, Assistant Attorney General, Donna Elizabeth Tanner, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment as to Corbett’s claims in a civil rights action brought

pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012). This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2012),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The order Corbett

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 this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished