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

Wicker v. Pulliam

Wicker v. Pulliam
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 2, 1996

Wicker v. Pulliam

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6422

BENNIE WICKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VICTOR L. PULLIAM; CLYDE BOWEN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3647-3-17-BC)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bennie Wicker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE, MONTGOMERY, POTTS & MEDLOCK, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for ap- pointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic- tion 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.

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

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