Filed: Jan. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2496 LOYLESS B. TUCKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REGINALD A. LEE, SR.; WILLIAM E. REID, JR., Plaintiffs, versus JOHN B. DALTON, Secretary; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendants - Appellees, versus JAMES L. CRAWFORD, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-113-2-18AJ) Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: January 21, 1997 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2496 LOYLESS B. TUCKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REGINALD A. LEE, SR.; WILLIAM E. REID, JR., Plaintiffs, versus JOHN B. DALTON, Secretary; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendants - Appellees, versus JAMES L. CRAWFORD, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-113-2-18AJ) Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: January 21, 1997 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2496
LOYLESS B. TUCKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
REGINALD A. LEE, SR.; WILLIAM E. REID, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JOHN B. DALTON, Secretary; DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY,
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
JAMES L. CRAWFORD,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-96-113-2-18AJ)
Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: January 21, 1997
Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loyless B. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his
motion for appointment of his choice of representative. 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. § 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 note that our
dismissal renders moot Appellant's motion to expedite this appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3