Opinion of the Court — Nethken v. Bell

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Per curiam: Yes — no individual author
Filed: June 6, 2002
Case: Nethken v. Bell
Case status: Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

PER CURIAM. Harry Thomas Nethken, Jr., appeals the recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing certain parties and claims in this § 1983 action. 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 , 69 S.Ct. 1221 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.