Michau v. Orr

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Michau v. Orr

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7353

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BRUCE ORR, Detective, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; JERRY JELLICO, Detective, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; MR. TANNER, Detective, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; MR. FIELDS, Detective, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; JACK GUEDALIA, Magis- trate of Charleston County; SERGEANT TAGUE, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; DETECTIVE BUHLE, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; DETECTIVE HALE, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; DETECTIVE TITTLE, Charleston County Sheriff's Office; LEROY LINEN, Magistrate of Charleston County,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-442-2-8-AK, CA-96-443-2-8-AK)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo- tion to appoint counsel and adopting the magistrate judge's recom-

mendation to dismiss two Defendants with prejudice in this action

filed under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994). 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

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1994); 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 deny Appellant's motion for enlargement of the record 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 deci-

sional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished