Boyles v. Virginia

Fourth Circuit

Boyles v. Virginia

134 F. App'x 631

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2005

DocketNo. 05-6552

StatusPublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 631 (Boyles v. Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyles v. Virginia, 134 F. App'x 631 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles E. Boyles seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of 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 Boyles seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Boyles’s motion to note exception and/or objection and to request mediation, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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

PER CURIAM:

Charles E. Boyles seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of 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 Boyles seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Boyles’s motion to note exception and/or objection and to request mediation, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. App'x 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyles-v-virginia-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack