JOHNSON v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 13-1652. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130729098
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying Johnson's motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the answer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling order. The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying Johnson's motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the answer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling order. The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certai..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying Johnson's motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the answer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling order. The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appelees' motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Johnson's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
