Case ID: f-appx_547/html/0216-02.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

Greg P. GIVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott R. SMITH, individually and collectively; Keith C. Gamble, individually and collectively; Stephen M. Fowler, individually and collectively; D. Luke Furbee, individually and collectively; Officer S.A. Zimmerman, individually and collectively; Officer D.L. Robinson, individually and collectively; County Of Ohio, West Virginia, individually and collectively; Honorable James P. Mazzone, individually and collectively; Honorable Arthur M. Recht, individually and collectively; Honorable Ronald E. Wilson, individually and collectively; Kenneth W. Blake, individually and collectively; Julie L. Kreefer, individually and collectively; Toni Vancamp, individually and collectively; The State Journal, individually and collectively; Susan Hamrick, individually and collectively, Defendants-Appellees, and J.C. WEAVER, Movant.
    No. 13-1841.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.
    Greg P. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, 'Wheeling, West Virginia; Kenneth Louis Hopper, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Morgan-town, West Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, Hedges Lyons & Shepherd, Morgantown, West Virginia; Kevin A. Nelson, Huddleston & Bolen, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Robert Gregory McDermott, McDermott & Bonenberger, PLLC, ■Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Greg P. Givens seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and imposing a prefiling injunction. 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 Givens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Givens’ motions to strike and for appointment of counsel. 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.