Case Name: In Re: Kenneth Edward BARBOUR, Appellant. Christopher George Washington, Petitioner, v. Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 09-8178
Parties: In Re: Kenneth Edward BARBOUR, Appellant. Christopher George Washington, Petitioner, v. Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
In Re: Kenneth Edward BARBOUR, Appellant. Christopher George Washington, Petitioner, v. Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-8178.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 24, 2010.
Kenneth Edward Barbour, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
' PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Barbour, a three-striker under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006), who filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on behalf of a fellow prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order providing him with notice that signing pleadings on behalf of another may be considered the unlicensed practice of law, and advising the fellow prisoner that if he desires to file a § 2254 petition he must do so personally or through counsel and sign the petition under penalty of perjury. 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 Barbour seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Barbour's motion to expedite a decision in this appeal, 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.