Filed: Apr. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7714 DUKE E. WOODLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL R. PEED, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF FAIRFAX; ARCHIVES DIVISION, Fairfax County Jail, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-368-R) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7714 DUKE E. WOODLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL R. PEED, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF FAIRFAX; ARCHIVES DIVISION, Fairfax County Jail, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-368-R) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7714
DUKE E. WOODLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARL R. PEED, Sheriff,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CITY OF FAIRFAX; ARCHIVES DIVISION, Fairfax
County Jail,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-368-R)
Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Brandt, Robert S.
Corish, SLENKER, BRANDT, JENNINGS & JOHNSTON, Merrifield, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a magistrate judge's
order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. At the time
Appellant filed the notice of appeal it was interlocutory, but this
court now has jurisdiction over the appeal under the doctrine of
cumulative finality because all of Appellant's claims have been
dismissed. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers,
973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992). Because Appellant
failed to raise the issue concerning the denial of his motion for
appointment of counsel in an informal brief, we decline to consider
the issue further. Consequently, we affirm.* 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.
AFFIRMED
*
We deny Appellant's motion to file an amended complaint.
3