Tucker v. Hester, 94-6094

• Decision Date: 18 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-6094,94-6094
• Citation: 28 F.3d 1211
• Parties: NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. Sergeant HESTER; Mr. Herron, Manager-Hoke Correction; W. Shields, Superintendent, Hoke Correction; L. C. Phillips, Director, NCDOP, Defendants Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1211

28 F.3d 1211

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. Sergeant HESTER; Mr. Herron, Manager-Hoke Correction; W. Shields, Superintendent, Hoke Correction; L. C. Phillips, Director, NCDOP, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6094.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 23, 1994.

Decided July 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Alexander B. Denson, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-501-CRT-H)

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming stay of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action for ninety days pending administrative exhaustion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e (1988). 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (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.