Moore v. Rivera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 26, 2009
• Docket: 09-6324
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6324

IRA JEROME MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MILDRED L. RIVERA; JOHN R. OWEN, A.W.; STEVE LABIER, Unit Manager; BRUCE SMITH, Case Manager; CHARLES GRUBBS, Counselor; JULIETTE MOORE, Secretary; COLLETTE NICHOLSON, A.W.P.; MARVIN TUCKER, S.O.I, Unicor; LIZ CARLSON, Unit Manager; ANITA V. CANO, Case Manager; TROY JOHNSON, Lieutenant; JOHN AND JANE DOE, 1 through 100; MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH; DENNIS HINDERSHOT; ESTHER SLATER; OSCAR BROOKS; A. PAUL BROOKS; PAUL GONZALES; A. GALLETTA; STEPHEN BUCKLER; A. WIGGINS; KEITH KNIGHT; THOM COGER, and individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:08-cv-02540-RBH-WMC)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ira Jerome Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ira Jerome Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders staying discovery and denying his motions for appointment

of counsel and to disqualify the United States Attorney’s Office

from representing the defendants in his civil action. 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 (1949). The orders

Moore seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable

interlocutory or collateral orders. 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED