Hinton v. Henderson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 6, 2011
• Docket: 11-6096
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6096

CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL W. HENDERSON; PETER S. GILCHRIST; TERESA BROADWAY; ANDREW RUDGERS, Probation Officer,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (3:10-cv-00505-RJC-DLH)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Everett Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Charles Everette Hinton seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006) complaint to add an additional defendant. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

deny Hinton’s request for counsel 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