James Owens v. Erick Steiger, No. 08-6438 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6438 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERICK STEIGER, Mr., Chief of Security; KIM ANTHONY, Ms., Case Manager; MARY JO WILLIAMS, Regional Analyst; EDWARD G. PERRY, Chairman, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08cv-00121-JFM) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 2, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Joseph Owens seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). To the extent that Owens seeks to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Maryland, 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 Owens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that Owens seeks to state a § 1983 claim based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Ohio, or seeks to raise a habeas corpus claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Steiger, No. 1:08-cv-00121JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 21, 2008; entered Feb. 25, 2008). dispense with oral argument because - 2 - the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
