UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2354

GOD AND COUNTRY FOUNDATION; JAMES RENWICK MANSHIP, SR., individually and as Chairman of God and Country Foundation; J.R.M., JR.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

WILLIAM D. EUILLE, Mayor, individually, as former and current member of the City Council, and as Mayor of the city of Alexandria; SCOTT GIBSON, Sergeant, individually, as supervisor of Amy Santiago, and as a policeman for the city of Alexandria; NICK TODARO, Patrolman, individually and as a policeman for the city of Alexandria; DONALD HAYS, Lieutenant, individually, as a police “Internal Affairs Lieutenant” for the city of Alexandria and its police department; GEORGE MCANDREWS, individually and as a City Attorney for the city of Alexandria and its police department; KERRY DONNELLY, M.D., Mayor, individually, as a member of the City Council, and as a former Mayor of the city of Alexandria,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; AMY SANTIAGO, Investigator, individually and as a police officer for the city of Alexandria,

Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-590-A)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Renwick Manship, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Leslie Parpart, Ashley Lionel Taylor, Jr., TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s denial of

their motions for recusal, sanctions, and appointment of counsel.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders,

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(1949). The order the

Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We decline

Appellants’ request for an order directing the district court to

recuse itself or to transfer the case to a different district.

Likewise, we decline to appoint counsel on appeal or impose

sanctions against Appellees. 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

- 3 -