Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Eury v. Sandstrom, 01-7663 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7663 Visitors: 12
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7663 MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. SANDSTROM; S. MULLINS, Sergeant;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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer