Case Name: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jones County Improvement Association, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Lyndo Tippett, as Secretary; Cam McRae, as Public Official; JAY CONVERSE, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors; Tands Incorporation, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-11
Citations: 257 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 07-1676
Parties: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jones County Improvement Association, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Lyndo Tippett, as Secretary; Cam McRae, as Public Official; JAY CONVERSE, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors; Tands Incorporation, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jones County Improvement Association, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Lyndo Tippett, as Secretary; Cam McRae, as Public Official; JAY CONVERSE, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors; Tands Incorporation, as Private Individuals and/or Their Successors, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-1676.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2007.
Decided Dec. 11, 2007.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Scott A. Conklin, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nicole A. Crawford, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, Greensboro, North Carolina; John W. Ormand, III, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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 Willis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir.1987) (an order denying appointment of counsel is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal). Accordingly, we deny Willis's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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