Charles Hinton v. Michael Henderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00505-RJC-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998561902]. Mailed to: Charles Everette Hinton. [11-6096]

Case: 11-6096

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/06/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6096

CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL W. HENDERSON; PETER S. GILCHRIST; TERESA BROADWAY;
ANDREW RUDGERS, Probation Officer,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Dennis L. Howell,
Magistrate Judge. (3:10-cv-00505-RJC-DLH)

Submitted:

March 31, 2011

Decided:

April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Everett Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney
General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 11-6096

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/06/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles Everette Hinton seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) complaint to add an additional defendant.

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

Hinton

seeks

Corp.,
to

337

U.S.

appeal

is

541,

545-46

neither

a

(1949).
final

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

The

order

order

nor

an

Accordingly, we

deny Hinton’s request for counsel and dismiss the appeal 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

2