Filed: Dec. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7124 JIMMY D. RIOS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF, Defendant – Appellee, and ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H. CONNELL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7124 JIMMY D. RIOS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF, Defendant – Appellee, and ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H. CONNELL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7124
JIMMY D. RIOS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H. CONNELL,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Dean Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Dean Rios seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Rios 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2