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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-7343 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7343 CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?