TWEH v. GREEN, 13-8026. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140422096
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing Tweh's 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) claims against several Defendants and has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing Tweh's 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) claims against several Defendants and has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing Tweh's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims against several Defendants and has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because Tweh's claims against three Defendants remain, the orders Tweh seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Tweh's motion for appointment of counsel and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
