UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7647
JOSE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG; RICHARD PHILLIPS; OFFICER
D. GREER; SERGEANT BURTIN; LIEUTENANT RAYNOLDS,
or Reynolds; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KING;
BUCHANAN; YATES; MS. YEARY; BELLAMY; LIEUTENANT
COLLINS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MICHAEL FLEMING;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TOMMY JACKSON; NURSE TAMMY
THOMAS; LIEUTENANT DONNIE LESTER; BENTLEY;
ANDERSON; F. WILLIS; TERESA L. JOHNSON; MR.
PHILLIPS, Assistant Warden of Programs; MS.
BAKER; BLILEY; BRIAN KISER; R. A. YOUNG; PAUL
OHAI, M.D.; KENNETH SLATER, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NURSE SHERRY STAFFORD; NURSE VICKY HARBER;
NURSE HARPER; MS. MCCURRY; MS. BERRY; SMITH;
MS. MULLINS; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; GRIEVANCE
DEPARTMENT; INSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS,
Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-876)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 7, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Peter Duane Vieth,
WOOTENHART, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III,
Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lopez appeals from the district court’s order in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action that granted summary judgment to
certain defendants and dismissed certain claims for failure to
exhaust state remedies or failure to state a claim. This Court has
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). A final decision is one that “ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). When a district court dismisses fewer than all claims as
to the order, it is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d
39, 42 (4th Cir. 1997).
We deny Lopez’s motion to lift stay and for leave to file
an interlocutory appeal and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
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 -