You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Jones v. Barnes

Citation: 143 F. App'x 547Docket: No. 05-1603

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; September 16, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Clarence Everett Jones, Sr. attempted to appeal a district court's decision that denied his request for an extension of the discovery period and dismissed one of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The appellate court, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292, determined that it has jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders. The court found that the order Jones sought to appeal did not qualify as either a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the court opted not to hold oral arguments, indicating that the existing materials sufficiently addressed the facts and legal issues at hand.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Application: The court dismissed Clarence Everett Jones, Sr.'s appeal because the order he sought to appeal was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Reasoning: The court found that the order Jones sought to appeal did not qualify as either a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Decision to Waive Oral Argument

Application: The court decided not to hold oral arguments, indicating that the materials on record adequately presented the necessary facts and legal issues.

Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the court opted not to hold oral arguments, indicating that the existing materials sufficiently addressed the facts and legal issues at hand.

Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292

Application: The appellate court does not have jurisdiction over non-final orders or non-appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: The appellate court, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292, determined that it has jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders.