Doyle v. Lightsey

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 2003
Docket03-7555
StatusUnpublished

This text of Doyle v. Lightsey (Doyle v. Lightsey) 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
Doyle v. Lightsey, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7555

BENJAMIN L. DOYLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR LIGHTSEY; NURSE BOONE; SELMA TOWNES, Superintendent; SUPERINTENDENT GINN; ASSISTANT MURRAY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CRAVEN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-64)

Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina; Melissa R. Garrell, TEAGUE, CAMPBELL, DENNIS & GORHAM, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Benjamin L. Doyle seeks to appeal the district court’s orders:

(1) dismissing his claims against the Department of Corrections and

Craven Correctional Institution as frivolous; and (2) denying his

motion for 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 (1949). The orders Doyle seeks to appeal are

neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Doyle’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Doyle v. Lightsey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-lightsey-ca4-2003.