Thomas Tweh v. Robert Greene
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-02360-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999121592]. Mailed to: Thomas Tweh. [13-6002]
Appeal: 13-6002
Doc: 19
Filed: 06/04/2013
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6002
THOMAS N. TWEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT GREENE; CAPTAIN PAYNE; SERGEANT JEFFERS; SERGEANT
TATE; DOCTOR DADGAR; ANTHONY STURGESS; DOCTOR DAVARIS; P.A.
D. STANSBURY; DEPUTY SHERIFF GREEN; DEPUTY SHERIFF SANGCO;
CORPORAL MUHAMMAD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-02360-GLR)
Submitted:
May 30, 2013
Decided:
June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Tweh, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Roger L. Wolfe, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6002
Doc: 19
Filed: 06/04/2013
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for appointment of counsel.
This court
may
28
exercise
jurisdiction
only
over
final
orders,
U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28
U.S.C.
§ 1292
(2006);
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
54(b);
Cohen
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
v.
The
order Tweh seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Miller v.
Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
contentions
are
before
this
and
court
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?