Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ballenger v. Barkley, 03-7977 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7977 Visitors: 25
Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7977 STANLEY MARK BALLENGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-3333-6-18K) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley M
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7977



STANLEY MARK BALLENGER,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3333-6-18K)


Submitted: April 29, 2004                        Decided:   May 4, 2004


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stanley Mark Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Stanley M. Ballenger seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying his motion for appointed counsel. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
 (1949).       The order Ballenger seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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