Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warren CHASE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. The PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS; Kathleen Green, Warden; Simon Wainwright, Warden; Tyrone Crowder; John S. Wolfe; Calvin Wilson; Patrica Shearin, Warden; D. Hansen, Major; C.N. Peay, Major; J. Mayfield, Lieutenant; T. Donnell, Lieutenant; R. Walker, Lieutenant; J.E. Price, Sergeant; M. Montgomery, Sergeant; T. Martin, Sergeant; T. Smith; T. Brawner, Sergeant; T. Brown, Sergeant; D. Mayzck, Sergeant; R. Thompson, Sergeant; S. Floid; D. Wiggins, Sergeant; K. Cooper, Sergeant; T. Richardson, Sergeant; H. Talib, Sergeant; M. Winn, Sergeant; E. Thompson, Sergeant; S. Phillips, Sergeant; A. Scott, Sergeant; D. Green, Sergeant; E. Pulley, Sergeant; D. Mangum, Sergeant; M. Ross, Sergeant; D. Oliver, Sergeant; D. Chase, Sergeant; D. Alexander, Sergeant; L. Battle, Sergeant; F. Smith, Sergeant; B. Stolks, Sergeant; J.A. Bailey, Sergeant, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-6225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 22, 2009.
    Decided: June 29, 2009.
    Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a default judgment. 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 Chase 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 also deny Chase’s request for injunctive relief. 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.