Thomas v. Middleton

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6041

TITUS THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. MIDDLETON; B.L. MAUST, Officer; IMANI GREEN, Inmate, ID 337-646; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate, ID 340-968,

Defendants – Appellees,

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Party – in – Interest.

No. 11-6120

TITUS THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. MIDDLETON; B.L. MAUST, Officer; IMANI GREEN, Inmate, ID 337-646; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate, ID 340-968,

Defendants – Appellees,

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Party – in – Interest. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01493-AW)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas seeks to

appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions for

appointment of counsel and for production of documents. 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

orders Thomas seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor

appealable 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 the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED