Case Name: Vincent EASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Frank Bishop, Defendants-Appellees, Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 13-6386
Parties: Vincent EASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Frank Bishop, Defendants-Appellees, Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
Vincent EASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Frank Bishop, Defendants-Appellees, Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest-Appellee.
No. 13-6386.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 18, 2013.
Vincent Easley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Do-rianne Avery Meloy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Easley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying without prejudice his motions to transfer and to appoint 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.CivJP. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Easley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Easley's pending motion to appoint counsel 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.