Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6399 BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Mustafa Beezy Bey, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM DELAHOYDE; R.T. PEREIRA; MICHAEL G. HOWELL; SUSAN GAUDIOSO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03171-BO) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6399 BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Mustafa Beezy Bey, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM DELAHOYDE; R.T. PEREIRA; MICHAEL G. HOWELL; SUSAN GAUDIOSO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03171-BO) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and H..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6399
BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Mustafa Beezy Bey,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM DELAHOYDE; R.T. PEREIRA; MICHAEL G. HOWELL; SUSAN
GAUDIOSO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03171-BO)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquis Jennings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of a civil conspiracy claim against certain
defendants in his civil action and a subsequent order denying his 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). The
orders Jennings seeks to appeal are neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal and
deny as moot Jennings’ motion for a stay pending appeal. 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
2