Simms v. Osborne, 64 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Simms v. Osborne, 64 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“because rule 41 provides for the dismissal of actions, rather than claims, rule 15 is technically the proper vehicle to accomplish a partial dismissal.”
59 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cross River Bank v. 3 Bea’s Assisted Living LLC, et al. (mdd, 2026-04-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Cross River Bank v. 3 Bea’s Assisted Living LLC, et al.
D. Maryland · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
because rule 41 provides for the dismissal of actions, rather than claims, rule 15 is technically the proper vehicle to accomplish a partial dismissal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cole v. Christian
S.D.W. Va · 2024 · confidence medium
In Skinner the court reasoned that had a motion to amend been granted the defendants would have been prejudiced due to the time and expense incurred in preparation for summary judgment. 64 F.3d 659 at *3.
discussed Cited "see" Kenney v. Charnock
S.D.W. Va · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sizemore v. Aliff, 64 F.3d 659 , *4 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (cited by Defendants and stating, in part, that a reasonable official could consider a chief tax deputy, who had supervisory duties and an advisory role to the sheriff on tax, was a policymaker and subject to political discharge as the law existed in 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David M. Simms
v.
Warden Osborne Ms. Cody, Counselor Doctor Raynaud, Psychiatrist Captain Ferguson Lieutenant Doss Security Staff at Buckingham Correctional Center Ms. Cohun, Grievance Coordinator R.D. Barlow, Treatment Program Supervisor Treatment Team Ms. Debord, Social Worker M. Rostafinski, Dr. Marsha Altizer R.G. Picarella, Psychologist
95-6379.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Aug 16, 1995.
64 F.3d 659
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case

64 F.3d 659

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David M. SIMMS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Warden OSBORNE; Ms. Cody, Counselor; Doctor Raynaud,
Psychiatrist; Captain Ferguson; Lieutenant Doss; Security
Staff at Buckingham Correctional Center; Ms. Cohun,
Grievance Coordinator; R.D. Barlow, Treatment Program
Supervisor; Treatment Team; Ms. Debord, Social Worker; M.
Rostafinski, Dr.; Marsha Altizer; R.G. Picarella,
Psychologist, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6379.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1995.

David M. Simms, appellant pro se.

Mary Elizabeth Shea, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Richard Edward Ladd, Jr., Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, VA, for appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's interlocutory order that dismissed some defendants and some claims in his Sec. 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.[*] This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Since the court has not entered a final order disposing of all of Appellant's claims, the order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

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.

3

DISMISSED.

*

To the extent that Simms sought preliminary injunctive relief, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial thereof. Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283 (4th Cir.1980)