Leon Cheatham v. William Muse

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00320-CMH-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999496946]. Mailed to: L. Cheatham. [14-7221]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-7221 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/19/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7221 LEON CHEATHAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; CLARK, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, HAROLD Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00320-CMH-TRJ) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon Cheatham, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-7221 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/19/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Leon Cheatham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2012); Loan Fed. Corp., 337 R. Civ. U.S. P. 541, The order Cheatham 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 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?