Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7663 MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. SANDSTROM; S. MULLINS, Sergeant; D. CARLAN; M. BOSTIC; B. RIFE; SERGEANT JOHNSON; M. VANDYKE, Sergeant; K. MCCLANANAHN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-930-7) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUT
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7663 MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. SANDSTROM; S. MULLINS, Sergeant; D. CARLAN; M. BOSTIC; B. RIFE; SERGEANT JOHNSON; M. VANDYKE, Sergeant; K. MCCLANANAHN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-930-7) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTT..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7663
MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
M. SANDSTROM; S. MULLINS, Sergeant; D. CARLAN;
M. BOSTIC; B. RIFE; SERGEANT JOHNSON; M.
VANDYKE, Sergeant; K. MCCLANANAHN, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-00-930-7)
Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here
appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order.
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.
DISMISSED
2