Darnell Black, Sr. v. B. Ramos, et al
| B. RAMOS, MD, in individual and official capacity and TIGGS BROWN, MD, in individual and official capacity |
| DARNELL BLACK, Sr. |
| 19-55552 |
| May 14, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed order (RICHARD R. CLIFTON, N. RANDY SMITH and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal, dated May 2, 2019, does not challenge a final or appealable order entered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) (magistrate judges findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of final judgment by district court). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To date, appellant has not filed a notice of appeal of the district courts final order entered on May 6, 2019. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [11347647] (OC) [Entered: 06/27/2019 04:31 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Darnell Black, Sr. FORM 4 motion and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/02/2019. [11306100] (RL) [Entered: 05/22/2019 02:27 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Darnell Black Sr. opening brief due 07/08/2019. [11296287] (JMR) [Entered: 05/14/2019 09:28 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
