Donald E. Jones v. Harry Allsbrook, Superintendent Davis, Nurse Thompson, Nurse Aaron Johnson Charles Creecy

25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20936, 1994 WL 263181
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 16, 1994
Docket94-6038
StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1039 (Donald E. Jones v. Harry Allsbrook, Superintendent Davis, Nurse Thompson, Nurse Aaron Johnson Charles Creecy) 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
Donald E. Jones v. Harry Allsbrook, Superintendent Davis, Nurse Thompson, Nurse Aaron Johnson Charles Creecy, 25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20936, 1994 WL 263181 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1039
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Donald E. JONES, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Harry ALLSBROOK, Superintendent; Davis, Nurse; Thompson,
Nurse; Aaron Johnson; Charles Creecy, Defendants
Appellees.

No. 94-6038.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 1994.
Decided June 16, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Alexander B. Denson, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-32-CRT-5).

Donald Edgar Jones, appellant pro se.

LaVee Hamer Jackson, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 903 (1987).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20936, 1994 WL 263181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-e-jones-v-harry-allsbrook-superintendent-da-ca4-1994.