Ballenger v. Barkley

96 F. App'x 864
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 4, 2004·No. No. 03-7977·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stanley M. Ballenger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointed counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Ballenger 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ballenger v. Barkley, 96 F. App'x 864 (4th Cir. 2004).

96 F. App'x 864 (Ballenger v. Barkley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)