Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
16-2260•Chase Carmen Hunter v. Michael D. Riley, individually
16-2260Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit27.04.2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2260
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL D. RILEY, individually, in his official capacity as Commissioner of
Insurance for West Virginia, and in his official capacity as a Committee Member
of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICES OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:15-cv-05508)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Greg S. Foster, Assistant Attorney General,
Charleston, West Virginia; Kristen V. Hammond, Kelly Caswell Morgan, BAILEY &
WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Chase Carmen Hunter seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part the
Respondents’ motion to dismiss Hunter’s civil action. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Hunter seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.