Case Name: Walter Duane WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pushp K. CLAUDIUS; Freddie Gorrido; Samuel L. Batts; D.R. Stephens, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-21
Citations: 398 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 10-6585
Parties: Walter Duane WHITE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Pushp K. CLAUDIUS; Freddie Gorrido; Samuel L. Batts; D.R. Stephens, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
Walter Duane WHITE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Pushp K. CLAUDIUS; Freddie Gorrido; Samuel L. Batts; D.R. Stephens, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-6585.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2010.
Walter Duane White, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Walter Duane White seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion for a preliminary injunction in this Bivens action. 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, 545 — 16, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The court's denial of White's motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of White's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As for the denial White's motion for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Claudius, No. 5:09-ct-03191-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2010). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).