Morris Pettigrew, Sr. v. Corizon Medical Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01713-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999030003]. Mailed to: Morris J. Pettigrew, Sr.. [12-8077]

Appeal: 12-8077

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8077

MORRIS J. PETTIGREW, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES; PAUL MATERA, MD; DAVID M. MATHIS,
MD; LINO QUILO, MD; JOSEPH INZERILLO, MD; BRUCE FORD, PA;
JESSICA CECIL, PA; JENNIFER PATTERSON, RN; DR. CLEM, Medical
Director,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party Below.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
George Levi Russell, III, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01713-GLR)

Submitted:

January 22, 2013

Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris J. Pettigrew, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Davis,
III, Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN &

Appeal: 12-8077

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

COURTNEY, PC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-8077

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Morris J. Pettigrew, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order assessing a filing fee and denying his motion to
appoint counsel.

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, 54546 (1949).

The order Pettigrew seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3