Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Anthony Atkins v. B. Brereton, Counselor Counselor Walus Larry Huffman, 94-6979 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6979 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1215 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Anthony ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. BRERETON, Counselor; Counselor WALUS; Larry HUFFMAN, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-6979. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Feb. 16, 1995. Decided: March 6, 1995. A
More

48 F.3d 1215
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Anthony ATKINS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
B. BRERETON, Counselor; Counselor WALUS; Larry HUFFMAN,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-6979.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided: March 6, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-225-R)

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 903 (1987).

2

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

*

We dismiss Atkins's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal

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