Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01676/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01676-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1676

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JONES COUNTY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNDO TIPPETT,

As Secretary; CAM MCRAE, As Public Official;

JAY CONVERSE, As Private Individuals And/Or

Their Successors; TANDS INCORPORATION, As

Private Individuals And/Or Their Successors,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (4:07-cv-00046-FL)

Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 11, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 07-1676 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/11/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Scott A. Conklin, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nicole A.

Crawford, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro,

North Carolina; John W. Ormand, III, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,

HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1676 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/11/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Willis seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th

Cir. 1987) (an order denying appointment of counsel is not

reviewable by interlocutory appeal). Accordingly, we deny Willis’s

motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-1676 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/11/2007 Pg: 3 of 3