Vincent Easley v. Maryland Division of Corr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999105599-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00241-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999132269]. Mailed to: Vincent Easley. [13-6386]

Appeal: 13-6386

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6386

VINCENT EASLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN FRANK BISHOP,
Defendants – Appellees,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party-in-Interest - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00241-ELH)

Submitted:

June 13, 2013

Decided:

June 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Easley, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Dorianne Avery
Meloy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6386

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Vincent Easley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying without prejudice his motions to transfer and 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 Easley seeks to appeal is neither a final

order

an

nor

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

Accordingly, we deny Easley’s pending motion to appoint 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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2