Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0261-02.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

Hieda A. KEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. FOX, Police Chief; Thomas A. Shull, Jr., Officer; Officer David Green; Justin Briggs, Officer; Michelle Rivera, Officer; John Polak, Sargeant; Lieutenant Sutton; M. Johnson, Detective; Hose H. Hernandez-Zamora, Officer; Larry Minkoff, Captain; Newport News Sheriff Department; Gabe Morgan, Sheriff; Sheriff Male, responded to Riverside; Virginia Beach Psychiatric Center; Stephen G. Cunningham, Dr.; Mark G. Clarke, Dr.; Judith Dockery, Attorney; Officer Neidengard; Officer Juneau; Sargeant Hines; Officer Hankins; Paul Compton, Virginia State Police Trooper; Tony Passaro, Virginia State Police Trooper; Darrell Hollowell, Virginia State Police Trooper; Female EMT, Newport News EMT; Male EMT, Newport News EMT; City of Newport News; Sheriff Female, responded to Riverside; Chad Dorsk, Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-2447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 17, 2013.
    Decided: Jan. 22, 2013.
    Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mary August Huffman, Hancock Daniel Johnson & Nagle, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Megan Paulita Bradshaw, Dante Medardo Filetti, Goodman, Allen & Filetti, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Darlene P. Bradberry, Office of the City Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Joshua James Coe, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hieda A. Keeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order permitting the substitution of defense counsel, denying her motion for appointment of counsel, and various other issues. 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 issues Keeler seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.