Wilder v. Leavitt

Fourth Circuit

Wilder v. Leavitt

326 F. App'x 171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1180

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 171 (Wilder v. Leavitt) 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

Wilder v. Leavitt, 326 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order placing his motion for appointment of counsel in abeyance pending receipt of a response to Wilder’s mandamus petition. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Wilder seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.

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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order placing his motion for appointment of counsel in abeyance pending receipt of a response to Wilder’s mandamus petition. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Wilder seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F. App'x 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-leavitt-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack