Lonnie Barnes, III v. Wayne v. Gay F. Emory J. Whitley Al T. Daniel Josephine Edwards Gregory T. Godard Bobbie D. Jones David L. West

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit November 14, 1994

Lonnie Barnes, III v. Wayne v. Gay F. Emory J. Whitley Al T. Daniel Josephine Edwards Gregory T. Godard Bobbie D. Jones David L. West, 39 F.3d 1175 (4th Cir. 1994)

1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38046; 1994 WL 632495

Opinion

39 F.3d 1175

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lonnie BARNES, III, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Wayne V. GAY; F. Emory; J. Whitley; Al T. Daniel;
Josephine Edwards; Gregory T. Godard; Bobbie D.
Jones; David L. West, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6626.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 1994.
Decided Nov. 14, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-469-CRT-F).

Lonnie Barnes, III, Appellant Pro Se. Tyrus Vance Dahl, Jr., Ellen M. Gregg, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motion to amend his complaint and allowing appointed counsel to withdraw in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

Reference

Status: Unpublished