Moody v. Kapica, 76-1016
| Decision Date | 01 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1016,76-1016 |
| Parties | Joseph W. MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman F. KAPICA et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Joseph W. Moody, pro se.
John F. Lynch, Jr., Lynch & Tummino, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
Joseph W. Moody, who is serving a life sentence for murder in the Southern Michigan State Prison, filed this action against six defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In a memorandum opinion filed October 9, 1975, District Judge Wendell A. Miles dismissed the action as to four defendants but denied a motion to dismiss as to Guy A. Lee, Sheriff of Lake County, Michigan, and Robert Johnson, Undersheriff. The suit remains pending in the District Court against these two defendants.
Moody appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing the action as to four defendants. The appeal is considered under Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e). 1
The appellate record contains no express direction for entry of final judgment as to the four dismissed defendants and no determination by the District Judge that there is no just reason for delay as to them, as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
Therefore, there is no final appealable judgment and this court has no jurisdiction. Oak Construction Company v. Huron Cement Company, 475 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1973); Balsbaugh v. City of Westland, 458 F.2d 1358 (6th Cir. 1972); Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 363 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1966); Gabbard v. Rose, 330 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1964). See also Foret v. McDermott, 484 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1973); Bowling Machines, Inc. v. First National Bank of Boston, 283 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1960).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sixth Circuit Rule 8.
1 (e) Docket Control. In the interest of docket control, the chief judge may from time to time, in his discretion, appoint a panel or panels to review pending cases for appropriate assignment or disposition under Rules 7(e), 8 or 9 or any other rule of this court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. William Beaumont Hosps.
... ... § 2253); United States v. Bryant, 246 ... F.3d 650, 653 (6th Cir. 2001) (same); Moody v ... Kapica, 548 F.2d 133 (6th Cir. 1976) (appeal lacked a ... "final appealable ... ...
-
Stradley v. Nichols
...district court's determination was a non-final order, it is unlikely that they could appeal from that order. See Moody v. Kapica, 548 F.2d 133 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam). Further, the defendants prevailed at the summary judgment stage, so they had no incentive to appeal. In their appellate......
-
Klyce v. Ramirez, 87-5176
...unless the district court directed entry of final judgment against those defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Moody v. Kapica, 548 F.2d 133 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam). 7 Cases consolidated for trial by the district court, however, do not lose their separate As recognized by the Supre......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Gilbert, s. 93-1663
...to consider an appeal. McIntyre v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam); Moody v. Kapica, 548 F.2d 133 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam). However, a previous panel of this court determined that the district court's order denying Gilbert's motion to quash g......