Case Name: Richard GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDITRUST CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-08
Citations: 32 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: No. 02-1060
Parties: Richard GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDITRUST CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 93–93

Head Matter:
Richard GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDITRUST CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2002.
Decided April 8, 2002.
Richard Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard Francis Miles, Huesman, Jones & Miles, Towson, Maryland; David Israel, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, L.L.P., Metairie, Louisiana; Kevin G. Barreca, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, L.L.P., New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard Grant appeals the district court order denying his motions for default judgment and appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 387 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Grant's motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending appeal is denied as moot.' 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.