Filed: Jun. 02, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6264 HUGH GREGORY TURBEVILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director, South Carolina De- partment of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-1475-0-19BD) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6264 HUGH GREGORY TURBEVILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director, South Carolina De- partment of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-1475-0-19BD) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6264
HUGH GREGORY TURBEVILLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director, South Carolina De-
partment of Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-98-1475-0-19BD)
Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugh Gregory Turbeville, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner,
Jr., CLARKSON, FORTSON, WALSH & RHENEY, P.A., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hugh Gregory Turbeville appeals the district court’s order
denying his motions for court-appointed counsel and for recusal of
the magistrate judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion 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