Robert Harris v. Harley Lappin, No. 08-7817 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7817 ROBERT LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Individually and in their Official Capacity under the Color of Law; KAREN WHITE, Regional Director; AL HAYNES, Warden of U.S.P. Hazelton; DUKE TERRELL, Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; A. W. JETT, Associate Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; G. DRENNAN, Hospital Administrator of U.S.P. Leavenworth; BOYLE, Hospital Administrator of U.S.P. Hazelton; MCCULLUM, Dr. - Clinical Director of U.S.P. Leavenworth; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT, Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal capacity; BILL CAREY, Lieutenant - Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal capacity; UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS EMPLOYEE, and is sued in his personal capacity, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00058-REM-JSK) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court s order granting his motion for an extension of time to file a response to the magistrate judge s recommendation in his underlying action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This court may 28 exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before Cohen The order order nor an Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are 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.
