Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Murphy v. West, 98-1173 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1173 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1173 YVONNE L. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 97-2243-CCB, CA-97-2264-CCB) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 98-1173



YVONNE L. MURPHY,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus


TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary, Department of
the Army,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
97-2243-CCB, CA-97-2264-CCB)


Submitted:   May 14, 1998                    Decided:   May 27, 1998


Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Yvonne L. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her

motion for reconsideration of the district court's denial of her

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. § 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 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

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