Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Renoir v. Miller, 99-6862 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6862 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6862 PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN MILLER, M.D.; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-330-7) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 99-6862



PIERRE A. RENOIR,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


KAREN MILLER, M.D.; ROANOKE CITY JAIL,

                                               Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-99-330-7)


Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 26, 1999


Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Pierre A. Renoir, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Pierre Renoir appeals a district court order denying his mo-

tion 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