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)
06-7027•Freeman L. Hankins v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
06-7027Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 21, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7027
FREEMAN L. HANKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CONNIE JORDAN; BRUNSWICK COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BRUNSWICK COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; REX GORE; CHRISTOPHER B.
GENTRY; DAWN H. FRANCISCO; ADRAIN IAPALUCCI;
GRIFFIN ANDERSON; TONY MICHEALKIS, Doctor;
THOMAS J. DAVID, Doctor; MARTA BROWN, Doctor;
YVONNE M. KING; CHRIS THOMAS; M. BOWEN,
Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-ct-00390-BO)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing some of his claims as frivolous in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000) action. 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 Hankins 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
grant Hankins’ motions to amend his informal brief and deny his
motions to appoint counsel, to amend his complaint for summary
judgment and “to file 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.