Case Name: Raphael MENDEZ, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT, Federal Judge; James B. Craven, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; G. Alan Dubois, Federal Appointed Attorney; Jane Ely Pearce, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-27
Citations: 323 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 09-6252
Parties: Raphael MENDEZ, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT, Federal Judge; James B. Craven, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; G. Alan Dubois, Federal Appointed Attorney; Jane Ely Pearce, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
Raphael MENDEZ, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT, Federal Judge; James B. Craven, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; G. Alan Dubois, Federal Appointed Attorney; Jane Ely Pearce, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants — Appellees.
No. 09-6252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 27, 2009.
Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raphael Mendez seeks to appeal a district court order in which the Chief Judge recused herself. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Mendez seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny the motions for discovery. 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.