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)
03-6773•Wilbert Anthony Neal v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
03-6773Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 17, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6773
WILBERT ANTHONY NEAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEVEN C. MILLER, Supervising, US Probation
Officer; STEVEN LABIER, Bureau of Prison;
JOSEPH B. STEELMAN, JR., Chief, US Probation
Office,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES A. BEATY, JR., United States District
Judge,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-134-9-10BG)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Wilbert Anthony Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wilbert Anthony Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment and
removing a federal district court judge from the complaint. 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 Neal seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Neal’s motions for appointment of counsel and
for oral argument. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.