U.S. v. RANKINS, 14-4839. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150123169
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his pro se motion for appointment of counsel and his motion requesting specific medical treatment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 , 54
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his pro se motion for appointment of counsel and his motion requesting specific medical treatment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 , 545..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his pro se motion for appointment of counsel and his motion requesting specific medical treatment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Rankins seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Rankins' motion for appointment of counsel and we grant the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
