Christopher Richards v. William Muse
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01472-CMH-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999518034]. Mailed to: Christopher Richards. [14-7343]
Appeal: 14-7343
Doc: 11
Filed: 01/27/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7343
CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
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-01472-CMH-JFA)
Submitted:
January 22, 2015
Decided:
January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Richards, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7343
Doc: 11
Filed: 01/27/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher
court’s
order
Richards
denying
seeks
Richards’
to
appeal
motions
for
the
district
production
of
documents and appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012)
civil
rights
action.
This
court
may
exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and
certain
interlocutory
and
collateral
orders,
28
U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); 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.
order
The order Richards
nor
an
appealable
Accordingly, we dismiss the
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
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?