Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07214/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mr. Fox
Appellee
Sergeant Lee
Appellee
Sergeant Minor

Sergeant Ross

Mr. Vaughn

Waddell
Appellee
Mr. Warren
Appellee
Jamey Lamont Wilkins
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7214

JAMEY LAMONT WILKINS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MR. WADDELL; MR. WARREN; MR. FOX; SERGEANT LEE, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

MR. VAUGHN; SERGEANT MINOR; SERGEANT ROSS, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03272-D) 

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jamey Lamont Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Elizabeth Tanner, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7214 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jamey Lamont Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s 

July 18, 2014, order dismissing one of the claims and three of 

the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights 

action, the court’s February 11, 2015, order denying his motions 

for reconsideration and to appoint counsel, and the magistrate 

judge’s April 17, 2015, order denying his motions to appoint 

counsel, to compel, to complete discovery, and for temporary 

transfer. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-47 (1949). The orders Wilkins seeks to appeal are neither 

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 

Accordingly, 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7214 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2