Jamal Azeez v. Kristen Keller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [998466541-2], denying Motion to expedite decision [998507832-2] Originating case number: 5:06-cv-00106 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998509751] [10-1515]

Case: 10-1515

Document: 28

Date Filed: 01/25/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1515

JAMAL A. AZEEZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KRISTEN L. KELLER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; LAWRENCE
FRAIL, Chief Prosecuting Attorney; BRUCE K. LAZENBY, Former
Prosecuting Attorney; FRANCIS M. CURNUTTE, III, Attorney at
Law; CEDRIC ROBERTSON, Police Officer; DAVID H. COOK,
Police
Officer;
BILLY
COLE,
Chief
of
Police;
JOHN
HUTCHINSON, County Judge; JANICE B. DAVIS, Clerk of Court,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:06-cv-00106)

Submitted:

December 1, 2010

Decided:

January 25, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal A. Azeez, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin John Robinson, Chip E.
Williams, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Beckley,
West Virginia; Francis M. Curnutte, III, FARMER, CLINE &
CAMPBELL, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges,
Teresa Jean Lyons, BYRNE, HEDGES & LYONS, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellees.

Case: 10-1515

Document: 28

Date Filed: 01/25/2011

Page: 2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-1515

Document: 28

Date Filed: 01/25/2011

Page: 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamal A. Azeez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying his motion for expungement of criminal records.
court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

This

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 (1949).

The

order Azeez 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 Azeez’s

motions to expedite and dispense with oral argument because the
facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3