Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0852-01.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

Christopher Leonard OLSZOWY; Anna Olszowy, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; Wayne Dewitt, Sheriff, Berkeley County; Richard Driggers, Major, Defendants—Appellees, and Joseph Stephen Schmutz; Berkeley County Sheriff's Department; Officer of the Solicitor Ninth Judicial Circuit; Berkeley County Clerk of Court; Goose Creek Magistrate; South Carolina Bar Association; John H. Price, Jr.; J. Westcoat Sandlin; O. Grady Query; Michael P. O’Connell; Natalie Parker Bluestein; Constance Mills; Mary P. Brown; Scarlett A. Wilson; John Church, Solicitor, Defendants.
    No. 10-7231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 2, 2010.
    Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. Harry V. Ragsdale, Corrigan & Chandler, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher and Anna Olszowy seek to appeal the district court order denying their motion for 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order the Olszowys’ seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Further, we deny their motion for a change of venue and to suspend briefing. 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.