Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Turbeville v. Moore, 99-6264 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6264 Visitors: 61
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6264 HUGH GREGORY TURBEVILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director, South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 Dismissed by unpublished per c
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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