Richard Peamon v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 25, Afl-Cio Washington Hilton and Towers, 842 F.2d 1292, 4th Cir. (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsRichard Peamon v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 25, Afl-Cio Washington Hilton and Towers, 842 F.2d 1292, 4th Cir. (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs842 F.
2d 1292
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Richard PEAMON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 25,
AFL-CIO;
Washington Hilton and Towers, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-3769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 29, 1987.
Decided March 4, 1988.
Richard Peamon, appellant pro se.
Mady Gilson, Jeffrey R. Freund, Bredhoff & Kaiser; Deborah A. Folloni,
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, K.K. HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Peamon appeals the district court order staying discovery pending
resolution of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final
orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all
parties. It "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).
3
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as
to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order
appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292. Finally, the order is not
appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as
interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues
have been decided authoritatively and deny the defendants' motion for
attorney's fees.
DISMISSED.
