Andrew Wenmoth v. Ovid Duncan, Jr.

Filing 920091222

Rehearing granted, February 11, 2010

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7750

ANDREW D. WENMOTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE, Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs; TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-7826

ANDREW D. WENMOTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE, Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs; TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00182-JPB-JSK)

Submitted:

December 15, 2009

Decided:

December 22, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew D. Wenmoth, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Buck, April Joy Wheeler, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Andrew Wenmoth seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his complaint in part and denying his motion to alter or amend the district's order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); (1949). orders orders, v. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. R. Civ. U.S. P. 541

Cohen

Beneficial

Corp.,

337

The orders Wenmoth seeks to appeal are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Accordingly, we deny Wenmoth's motions for stays pending appeal and dismiss the appeals 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

3