Case Name: Lawrence Verline WILDER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Chief Jim Johnson; Officer Robert Long; Officer Doyle; Officer Buttons; Officer Jackson; Officer Dunning; Officer Covington; Officer Thompson; Officer Maybin; Officer Sewell; Officer Powers; Officer Smith; Officer Faim; Officer Bruce; Unknown Officers and Agents, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-04
Citations: 336 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 09-1309
Parties: Lawrence Verline WILDER, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Chief Jim Johnson; Officer Robert Long; Officer Doyle; Officer Buttons; Officer Jackson; Officer Dunning; Officer Covington; Officer Thompson; Officer Maybin; Officer Sewell; Officer Powers; Officer Smith; Officer Faim; Officer Bruce; Unknown Officers and Agents, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 336
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Lawrence Verline WILDER, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Chief Jim Johnson; Officer Robert Long; Officer Doyle; Officer Buttons; Officer Jackson; Officer Dunning; Officer Covington; Officer Thompson; Officer Maybin; Officer Sewell; Officer Powers; Officer Smith; Officer Faim; Officer Bruce; Unknown Officers and Agents, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1309.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2009.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., filed a complaint against the Baltimore County Police Department and several officers, alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court entered an order granting Wilder leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denying without prejudice his motion for appointment of counsel, and placing his case on inactive status pending resolution of cases Wilder has on the court's active docket. Wilder seeks to appeal, challenging the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. 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). Because the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel is not immediately appeal-able, Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir.1987), 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.