Jamey Wilkins v. Mr. Waddell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03272-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999681511]. Mailed to: Jamey Wilkins. [15-7214]

Appeal: 15-7214

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7214

JAMEY LAMONT WILKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. WADDELL; MR. WARREN; MR. FOX; SERGEANT LEE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MR. VAUGHN; SERGEANT MINOR; SERGEANT ROSS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03272-D)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamey Lamont Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Elizabeth Tanner,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7214

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jamey Lamont Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
July 18, 2014, order dismissing one of the claims and three of
the

Defendants

in

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

civil

rights

action, the court’s February 11, 2015, order denying his motions
for reconsideration and to appoint counsel, and the magistrate
judge’s April 17, 2015, order denying his motions to appoint
counsel, to compel, to complete discovery, and for temporary
transfer.

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.

545-47 (1949).

28

U.S.C.

Beneficial

§ 1292

Indus.

(2012);

Loan

Fed.

Corp.,

337

R.

Civ.

U.S.

P.

541,

The orders Wilkins seeks to appeal are neither

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2