Wilkins v. Henderson

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1734 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGE HENDERSON; WOODROW P. LIPSCOMB, Attor- ney; WILLIAM SUGG, Judge; CHARLES MCCORMICK, Judge; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Anton Joseph Stelly, William S. Smithers, Jr., THOMPSON, SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Cullen, Gregory E. Lucyk, Claude Alexander Allen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting the mo- tions to dismiss filed by Defendants Lipscomb, Sugg, McCormick, and Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order did not dispose of all the defendants in the action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocu- tory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We 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 2