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.

Moore v. Rivera

Citation: 332 F. App'x 900Docket: No. 09-6324

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 26, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Ira Jerome Moore's appeal concerning the district court's orders to stay discovery and to deny his motions for appointment of counsel and disqualification of the United States Attorney’s Office from representing the defendants has been dismissed. The appeal was found to lack jurisdiction as the orders in question are neither final orders nor qualify as appealable interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292. The court concluded that oral argument was unnecessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently clarified in the submitted materials. The appeal is dismissed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Orders

Application: The court determined that the orders appealed by Ira Jerome Moore were not appealable because they did not constitute final orders or qualify as appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Reasoning: The appeal was found to lack jurisdiction as the orders in question are neither final orders nor qualify as appealable interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.

Jurisdiction of Appeals

Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that only certain types of orders can be appealed under the relevant statutes.

Reasoning: The appeal was found to lack jurisdiction as the orders in question are neither final orders nor qualify as appealable interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.

Necessity of Oral Argument

Application: The court concluded that oral argument was unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal because the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the written submissions.

Reasoning: The court concluded that oral argument was unnecessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently clarified in the submitted materials.