Filed: Feb. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1000 FRANK THOMAS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODORE THORNTON; BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 3263-L) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1000 FRANK THOMAS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODORE THORNTON; BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 3263-L) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1000
FRANK THOMAS BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THEODORE THORNTON; BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
3263-L)
Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002
Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Thomas Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Brian K. Williams, Assistant
General Counsel, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank T. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for appointment of counsel filed in his employment discrim-
ination action. 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