Court Opinion

ID: 1008371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:39:22.581134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:36.282144
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-6838

WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR.,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

STU   TAYLOR,   Assistant      Warden;   SERGEANT
RITCHIE,

                                               Defendants - Appellees,

          and

RONALD ANGELONE, Commonwealth of Virginia -
Director; ROSCOEUL RAMSEY, Doctor,

                                                            Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-1668-AM)

Submitted:   August 15, 2002                 Decided:   August 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Irvin Marable, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

     William Irvin Marable, Sr., appeals district court’s order

granting summary judgment.    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., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

     We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.     We also deny the

pending motions to appoint 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

                                2