Newkirk v. Lerner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Newkirk v. Lerner, 511 F. App'x 244 (4th Cir. 2013)

Newkirk v. Lerner

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action and denying without prejudice his motion to transfer, motion to amend, and motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Newkirk seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Reference

Full Case Name
Kenneth NEWKIRK v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court Anton Bell, District Attorney George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer Monae Debra Waters-Owens Thomas Sherrad Kearney
Status
Published