John Lebon v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7783
JOHN LEBON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; MARYLAND PAROLE COM-
MISSION; STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION;
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED;
ROBERT ABBOTT, Dr., D.D.S.; J. E. BROWN, Dr.,
D.D.S.; RICHARD WARD, Dr.; A. B. CORBIN,
L.P.N.; ROB ALDERMAN, P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-00-3748-AW)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Lebon, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald Joseph
Crawford, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, P.C., Rockville, Maryland;
Kristin L. Kremer, MASON, KETTERMAN & CAWOOD, P.A., Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Lebon appeals the district court’s order quashing an
earlier show cause order and requiring defendant EMSA Correctional
Care, Inc. to file a status report regarding the actions taken to
alleviate the health care claims enumerated by Lebon in his 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. 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 neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order.
We 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

-- 2 of 2 --