The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-6386•Hammel J. Clark v. Denise Gelsinger
18-6386Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 21, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6386
HAMMEL J. CLARK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENISE GELSINGER; LIEUTENANT LARRY C. BENNETT; CO II ALICIA A.
CARTWRIGHT; SERGEANT JASON A. DADDYSMAN; WARDEN RICHARD
J. GRAHAM; SERGEANT THOMAS MENGES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00921-TDC)
Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hammel J. Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Hammel J. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not
all, of Clark’s claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Clark 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.