U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

Renoir v. Angelone

Renoir v. Angelone
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 30, 1999

Renoir v. Angelone

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6596

PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RON ANGELONE; GEORGE E. DEEDS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-6698

PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RON ANGELONE; GEORGE E. DEEDS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-6722

PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RON ANGELONE; GEORGE E. DEEDS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-211-7)

Submitted: July 13, 1999 Decided: August 30, 1999

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pierre A. Renoir, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Pierre A. Renoir seeks to appeal district court orders denying his motion to join other plaintiffs in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), denying his motion for appointment of counsel, and staying the case pending the conclusion of the appeals of the first two orders. We dismiss all three appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are interlocutory and not appeal- able. 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 orders ap- pealed here are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

We therefore dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We further deny Renoir’s “Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum” and motion to consolidate Appeal No. 99-6863 with these appeals, and deny as moot his motion to consolidate Appeals Nos. 99-6698 and 99-6722 with 99- 6596. 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.