Cheatham v. Muse

588 F. App'x 262
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 19, 2014
DocketNo. 14-7221
StatusPublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 262 (Cheatham v. Muse) 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
Cheatham v. Muse, 588 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leon Cheatham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 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 Cheatham seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 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.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 F. App'x 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheatham-v-muse-ca4-2014.