UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6846
ANTHONY DOVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF KINSTON; KINSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT;
KINSTON HUMAN RESOURCES/PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT;
GREGORY SMITH, Fire Chief; KARL L. MUNSON,
Human Resource Director; COUNTY OF LENOIR,
NORTH CAROLINA; LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT; LENOIR COUNTY JAIL; BILLY SMITH,
Lenoir County Sheriff; ARCHIE BRUITON, Lenoir
County Head Jailer; BRANSON VICKORY, District
Attorney for District 8; IMELDA PATE, District
Attorney for District 8A,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-02-34-4-H)
Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,
SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gerald Patrick Murphy,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dove appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
civil rights complaint as to the Lenoir County Defendants. The
remaining aspects of the case are still pending before the district
court. This court’s jurisdiction to review cases is limited to
those matters involving final decisions of the district court and
certain specified interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292
(2000). Dove’s appeal does not involve a final order of the
district court, nor does it involve an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as
interlocutory.
Dove has also moved for sanctions against Appellees and
questioned the timeliness of Appellees’ responsive brief. We have
reviewed each of these motions and find that they do not merit
relief. Accordingly, we deny them both.
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
3