The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1024•CORA HILL, Prophetess v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
01-1024Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 30, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1024
CORA HILL, Prophetess,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
WORLD DELIVERANCE HEALTH FOUNDATION, INCORPO-
RATED; TREE OF LIFE MINISTRIES,
Plaintiffs,
versus
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN HOS-
PITAL ASSOCIATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES, Office of AIDS Research,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-00-182)
Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Cora Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Brenda Straub McClearn, SHARPLESS &
STAVOLA, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Joseph Morris,
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh,
North Carolina; John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cora Hill appeals the magistrate judge’s order dismissing two
of three Defendants in this action. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is nei-
ther a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order.
We grant the motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.