Unpublished Dispositiondouglas L. Perreault, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gwyn O'brien; Genesee County Sheriff's Department; Geneseecounty, Defendants-appellees, 852 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 852 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1988) July 26, 1988

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges and JAMES H. JARVIS, District Judge.* 

ORDER

This matter has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit and upon appellant's motion entitled "Motion for Appeal as of Right from the Partial Dismissal of Defendant Genesee County."

A review of the file and the certified record indicates that the district court's order filed on March 20, 1987, and entered on March 23, 1987, dismissed defendant Genesee County as a party, and ordered that the complaint be served on the remaining defendants, O'Brien and Genesee County Sheriff's Department. The Genesee County Sheriff's Department was served on July 7, 1987. Appellant's motion to reconsider the dismissal of Genesee County, filed January 4, 1988, was denied by the district court by order entered April 1, 1988. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 20, 1988.

This court lacks jurisdiction in the appeal. Absent Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification, an order disposing of fewer than all the claims or parties is not appealable. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 (1976); Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 59 (6th Cir. 1986). No rule 54(b) certification was made in the instant appeal. The final decision of the district court has not been entered during the pendency of this appeal; therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. See Gillis v. Department of H.H.S., 759 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly it is ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule 9(b) (1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

 *

The Honorable James H. Jarvis, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

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.