Filed: Apr. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6176 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Disabled Prisoner, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. TAYLOR, Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. KOPPEL, Major, 8-4 Shift; L. CHANNEY, Captain, 8-4 Shift; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, each defendant is individual and official capacity being sued, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Dist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6176 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Disabled Prisoner, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. TAYLOR, Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. KOPPEL, Major, 8-4 Shift; L. CHANNEY, Captain, 8-4 Shift; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, each defendant is individual and official capacity being sued, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Distr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6176
FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Disabled Prisoner,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. TAYLOR,
Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. KOPPEL, Major, 8-4
Shift; L. CHANNEY, Captain, 8-4 Shift; UNKNOWN
NAMED DEFENDANTS, each defendant is individual
and official capacity being sued,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-
900-L)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion seeking to recuse the district court judge. 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