Case Name: Darrell GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis TOMASETTI, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Justin Clinard, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Darryl Fisher, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Tammy Bryson, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Leslie K. Torgow; Curtis Jones; Leo McCabe; Luke Bigelow, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-02
Citations: 479 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 12-6885
Parties: Darrell GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis TOMASETTI, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Justin Clinard, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Darryl Fisher, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Tammy Bryson, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Leslie K. Torgow; Curtis Jones; Leo McCabe; Luke Bigelow, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Darrell GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis TOMASETTI, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Justin Clinard, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Darryl Fisher, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Tammy Bryson, Police Officer at Asheville Police Department; Leslie K. Torgow; Curtis Jones; Leo McCabe; Luke Bigelow, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-6885.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2012.
Darrell Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. Ren-dí Lynn Mann-Stadt, Ward & Smith, PA, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Gaines seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing the claims against some, but not all, of the defendants named in his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006). 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Gaines seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gaines' motion for appointment of counsel. 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.