Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7064 PATRICK J. STEEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY SERGEANT HURD; DEPUTY SERGEANT ELKINS; OFFICER BRUTON; OFFICER HAYNES; OFFICER POE; MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-544-3-MU) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7064 PATRICK J. STEEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY SERGEANT HURD; DEPUTY SERGEANT ELKINS; OFFICER BRUTON; OFFICER HAYNES; OFFICER POE; MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-544-3-MU) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7064
PATRICK J. STEEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEPUTY SERGEANT HURD; DEPUTY SERGEANT ELKINS;
OFFICER BRUTON; OFFICER HAYNES; OFFICER POE;
MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-544-3-MU)
Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick J. Steen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrick J. Steen appeals from the district court’s order deny-
ing appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West Supp.
1999). 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 interlocu-
tory 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. See Miller v.
Simmons,
814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987).
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