Filed: Jun. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1161 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEVE PRESTON, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; JOHN BRAVACOS, Regional Director; JAMES KELLY, Field Office Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00155-RDB) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1161 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEVE PRESTON, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; JOHN BRAVACOS, Regional Director; JAMES KELLY, Field Office Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00155-RDB) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 20..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1161
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVE PRESTON, Secretary, United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development; JOHN BRAVACOS, Regional
Director; JAMES KELLY, Field Office Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00155-RDB)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying without prejudice his motion for
appointment of counsel in an ongoing civil action. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order
Wilder 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