Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6252 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; G. ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed Attorney; JANE ELY PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D) Submitted: April 16, 2009 D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6252 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; G. ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed Attorney; JANE ELY PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D) Submitted: April 16, 2009 De..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6252
RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal
Appointed Counsel; G. ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed
Attorney; JANE ELY PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raphael Mendez seeks to appeal a district court order
in which the Chief Judge recused herself. 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 Mendez seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We also deny the motions for discovery. 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