Paul Scinto, Sr v. Edward Glenn Preston

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6207
PAUL SCINTO, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EDWARD GLENN PRESTON; RALPH MELTON, JR., FRANK
POLUMBO; BRIAN LEMAY; ERIC WING; E&J
AUTOMOTIVE, et al; THE CITY OF NEW BERN, NORTH
CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cv-00178-H)
Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Carlton Thornton, Sarah
Lynne Ford, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Gary Hamilton Clemmons, CHESNUTT, CLEMMONS & PEACOCK, PA,
New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Paul Scinto, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing certain defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders Scinto seeks to appeal
are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Defendants’ motion to stay and Scinto’s
motions to consolidate and to strike. 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 --