Shareef v. Donahoe

Fourth Circuit

Shareef v. Donahoe

542 F. App'x 258

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 17, 2013·No. Nos. 13-1806, 13-2078·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 13-1806, Kimberly F. Shareef seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion for appointment of counsel. In No. 13-2078, Shareef seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to compel and her motion for sanctions. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Shareef seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 13-1806, Kimberly F. Shareef seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion for appointment of counsel. In No. 13-2078, Shareef seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to compel and her motion for sanctions. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Shareef seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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.

Shareef v. Donahoe, 542 F. App'x 258 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

542 F. App'x 258 (Shareef v. Donahoe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related