Order Dismissing Appeals

    72= 1064- 5-6

J A M E S  A. H I G G I N S
C L E R K

O F F I C E  O F T H E  C L E R K

U N I T E D  S T A T E S  C O U R T  O F  A P P E A L S
F O R  T H E  S I X T H  C I R C U I T  

C I N C I N N A T I .  O H I O  4 5 2 0 2

February 23, 1972

Riley and Roumell 
Detroit, Michigan
Ratner, Sugarmon and Lucas 
Memphis, Tennessee
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
New York, N. Y.
Mr. E. Winther McCroom 
Cincinnati, Ohio >
Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 

Norman J. Chachkin 
New York, N. Y.

Messrs. J. Harold Flannery, 
Paul R. Dimond and 
Robert Pressman 

Cambridge, Massachusetts
Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs, 

O'Connell, Nunn and Freid 
Detroit, Michigan
Mr. Frank J. Kelley 
Lansing, Michigan
Mr. Robert A. Derengoski 
Lansing, Michigan

Re: Ronald Bradley, et al vs.
Board of Education of the School 
District of the City of Detroit 
No. 72-1064
William G. Milliken, et al 
No. 72-1065
William J. Milliken, et al 
No. 72-1066

Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the order which was 

entered today dismissing the appeals in the above- 
entitled cases.

Yours very truly,
James A.



NOS. 72-1064 
72-1065 
72-1066

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH

RONALD BRADLEY, et al
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
Cross-Appellants, 

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al

Defendants-Ap^ellants, 
Cross-Appellee,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor- 
Appellee,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al

Defendants-Intervenor.

CIRCUIT
f i l e d

i FEB 2 3)572 '
j JAMES A. HIGGINS, Clerk
) u)
)) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)

Before: CELEBREZZE, MC CREE and KENT, Circuit Judges.

These are appeals from an order entered on November 5, 
1971, following a "pretrial conference" held on October 4, 1971. 
The order from which these appeals are taken requires the parties 
to submit proposed plans for desegregation of the Detroit schools 
within a stipulated period of time which time had not passed at 
the time the appeals were filed. The order in question is not a



2,72-1064-5-6
♦

final order within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291, neither 
is it an interlocutory order or decree which may be appealed to 
this Court under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).

No party to the action has sought a certificate from the 
District Court or from this Court for an interlocutory appeal 
under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). There being no 
final order from which an appeal may be taken, and the cross­
appellants having agreed that their appeal may be dismissed with
the original appeal,

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss the appeals
be granted.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT