Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7977 STANLEY MARK BALLENGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-3333-6-18K) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7977 STANLEY MARK BALLENGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-3333-6-18K) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7977
STANLEY MARK BALLENGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3333-6-18K)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Mark Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley M. Ballenger seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying his motion for appointed counsel. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Ballenger seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -