Case ID: f-appx_330/html/0042-01.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

Lawrence Verline WILDER, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles JOHNSON, Acting Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Christopher Scolese, Acting Administrator NASA; John Gage, National President American Federation of Government Employees; Thomas Beck, Chairman Federal Labor Relations Authority; Stuart Ishimaru, Acting Chairman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Neil Anthony Gordon McPhie, Chairman United States Merit Systems Protection Board; The United States Office of Personnel Management, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-1308.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 30, 2009.
    Decided: Aug. 4, 2009.
    Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
    
      Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., filed a mandamus petition in the district court, requesting counsel and seeking to compel the defendants to notify him about any administrative or judicial decisions that involve him or from which he would benefit. The district court entered an order granting Wilder leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and placing his case on inactive status pending resolution of cases Wilder has on the court’s active docket. Wilder seeks to appeal, challenging the denial of appointment of counsel. 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). Because the order Wilder seeks to appeal is not immediately appealable, 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.