Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06260/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Columbus Correctional Institution
Appellee
Captain Evans
Appellee
Frank
Appellee
Fritze
Appellee
Sergeant Harris
Appellee
Nora Hunt
Appellee
Officer Locklear
Appellee
Bart Fitzgerald McClain
Appellant
Pat McCrory
Appellee
Nobles
Appellee
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Appellee
Frank Perry
Appellee
Preist
Appellee
George Solomon
Appellee
Jennifer Walsh
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6260

BART FITZGERALD MCCLAIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; COLUMBUS 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; PAT MCCRORY; FRANK PERRY; GEORGE

SOLOMON; OFFICER LOCKLEAR; NORA HUNT; JENNIFER WALSH; CAPTAIN 

EVANS; CAPTAIN PREIST; SERGEANT HARRIS; SERGEANT FRANK; PRISON 

ATTENDANT FRITZE; PRISON ATTENDANT NOBLES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:16-ct-03009-FL)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bart Fitzgerald McClain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6260 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Bart Fitzgerald McClain seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order of February 5, 2016, denying McClain’s motion to appoint 

counsel and for a subpoena. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order McClain seeks to appeal is neither 

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

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: 16-6260 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2