Jeffrey Edwards v. Carey Winders, No. 14-7363 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7363 JEFFREY EDWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAJOR GREENFIELD; LT. SCOTT; OFFICER CARCIRIERI; MIKE COX, Lieutenant; CHRIS WORTH, Lieutenant; CHUCK ARNOLD, Sargent; SHERIFF LARRY M. PIERCE; DR. CLEMENT L. MCCASKILL, Defendants - Appellees, and CAREY WINDERS, Sheriff, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03184-FL) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Derrenbacher, PATTERSON DILTHEY, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Joseph Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 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, 54546 (1949). A final order is one that disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). The order Edwards 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.