U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina William Davis, Warden Attorney General of the State of South Carolina Michael Moore, Director

Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina William Davis, Warden Attorney General of the State of South Carolina Michael Moore, Director
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 15, 1996
77 F.3d 470; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7982; 1996 WL 65945 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina William Davis, Warden Attorney General of the State of South Carolina Michael Moore, Director

Opinion

77 F.3d 470

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Howard PIERCE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; William Davis, Warden; Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina; Michael
Moore, Director, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 18, 1996.
Decided Feb. 15, 1996.

Howard Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.