William Auston Cash v. James Mett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999086753-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999056974-3] Originating case number: 6:12-cv-01815-MGL-KFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999138233]. Mailed to: William Auston Cash. [13-6238]

Appeal: 13-6238

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6238

WILLIAM AUSTON CASH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES METTS; E. V. KIRKLAND; DAN DOE; JOHN DOE; BENNETT E.
CASTO,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate
Judge. (6:12-cv-01815-MGL-KFM)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 26, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Auston Cash, Appellant Pro Se.
Justin Tyler Bagwell,
William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6238

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William

Auston

Cash

seeks

to

appeal

the

magistrate

judge’s order denying his motions to compel discovery, to depose
each defendant, and to seal the record in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006)

civil

rights

action.

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, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
appointment
expense.
legal
before

of

counsel

and

The order that Cash

order

nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss the
We deny Cash’s motion for the

for

transcripts

at

government

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2