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)
20-1983•Jonathan Torrey Duncan v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, now known as Wells Path, LLC
20-1983Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit26.03.2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1983
JONATHAN TORREY DUNCAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, now known as Wells Path, LLC; JOHN
RANCY; ALAN RHOADES; REBEKAH DIXON; AMANDA JENNINGS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
K. ADAMS; OFFICER ADAMS; OFFICER ADONJI; S. CALDWELL; OFFICER
JOHN DOE 4; OFFICER CARTER; NURSE JOHN DOE 1; OFFICER JOHN DOE
5; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 6; FORSYTH COUNTY; WILLIAM
T. SCHATZMAN; SCHUTT; OFFICER HOMMEL; WENDY HOGAN; A.
SWALLIE; K. TURPIN; TWONDA WHITE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00353-CCE-JLW)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Torrey Duncan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Torrey Duncan seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing 5 of the 18 named defendants in his
civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Duncan
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.