Erwin Donnell Bullock, Plaintiff-appellant, v. D.a. Garraghty, Kenneth L. Osborne, L.e. Nelson, Defendants-appellees, 943 F.2d 48 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 943 F.2d 48 (4th Cir. 1991)

Submitted Aug. 26, 1991. Decided Sept. 9, 1991


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-90-531)

Erwin Donnell Bullock, appellant pro se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D. Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


Erwin Donnell Bullock appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider the district court's dismissal of one of his claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which 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).

As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.