Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07291/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lambert
Appellee
Scott Oakley
Appellee
Oort

Portmess
Appellee
Arthur Rodgers
Appellant
Sottas
Appellee
Michael Stallings
Appellee
Unknown NBCI Prison Staff
Appellee
Sergeant Whitacre
Appellee
Robin Woolford
Appellee
Leah Youngblood
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7291

ARTHUR RODGERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STALLINGS; LEAH YOUNGBLOOD; SERGEANT WHITACRE; 

OFFICER PORTMESS; SOTTAS; LAMBERT; UNKNOWN NBCI PRISON 

STAFF; SCOTT OAKLEY; ROBIN WOOLFORD,

Defendants – Appellees

and

OORT,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-03778-CCB)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, 

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7291 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Rodgers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying Rodgers’ motions for discovery and appointment of 

counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. 

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 Rodgers seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the pending 

motion 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

Appeal: 14-7291 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2