943 F. 2d 48 - Bright v. State of Maryland Division of Correction a
943 F2d 48 Bright v. State of Maryland Division of Correction a
943 F.2d 48
David BRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Billy Joe King, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION, Richard A. Lanham,
Commissioner of Correction, Sewall Smith, Assistant Warden,
Bernard Smith, Acting Warden, David Barthlow, James Ashley,
John Sandstorm, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-7639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 1991.
Decided Sept. 10, 1991.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-1789-N)
David Bright, appellant pro se.
D.Md.
DISMISSED.
Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Advertisement
David Bright appeals the district court's order dismissing Bright as a party to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Bright and Billy Joe King. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, 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.