United States v. Nathaniel Craig Thompson
United States v. Nathaniel Craig Thompson
Opinion
66 F.3d 317
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,
v.
Nathaniel Craig THOMPSON, Defendant--Appellant.
No. 95-6972.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 1995.
Decided: Sept. 19, 1995.
Nathaniel Craig Thompson, appellant pro se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's denial of a discovery motion in his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (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 deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.