Narrative Opinion Summary
Robert Lee Harris's appeal of the district court's order granting an extension of time to respond to the magistrate judge's recommendation in his Bivens action is dismissed. The court clarifies that it can only exercise jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders as specified in 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 1292. The order in question does not meet these criteria, being neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no oral argument is necessary as the existing materials sufficiently address the facts and legal issues.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed due to the court's lack of jurisdiction over the non-final order.
Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no oral argument is necessary as the existing materials sufficiently address the facts and legal issues.
Final Orders Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal is dismissed because the order extending time to respond is not a final order, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Reasoning: The order in question does not meet these criteria, being neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Jurisdiction over Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals that are not from final orders or specified interlocutory or collateral orders.
Reasoning: The court clarifies that it can only exercise jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders as specified in 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 1292.