Filed: Jun. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6708 MICHAEL MAYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MONTY SHELOR, Correctional Officer; TERRY HALL, Correctional Officer; CHAD SHIFFLET, Sergeant, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-481-7) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6708 MICHAEL MAYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MONTY SHELOR, Correctional Officer; TERRY HALL, Correctional Officer; CHAD SHIFFLET, Sergeant, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-481-7) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6708
MICHAEL MAYO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MONTY SHELOR, Correctional Officer; TERRY
HALL, Correctional Officer; CHAD SHIFFLET,
Sergeant, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-02-481-7)
Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Mayo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Mayo appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to appoint counsel in his § 1983 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.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and deny
Mayo’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel. 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