Servidio v. Pittman

Fourth Circuit

Servidio v. Pittman

668 F. App'x 522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6696

StatusPublished

This text of 668 F. App'x 522 (Servidio v. Pittman) 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

Servidio v. Pittman, 668 F. App'x 522 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Servidio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Servidio seeks to appeal [523]*523is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Servidio’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal 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 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Servidio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Servidio seeks to appeal [523]*523is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Servidio’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F. App'x 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/servidio-v-pittman-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack