Momolu Sirleaf v. C. Wall


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999737648-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999737652-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999756264]. Mailed to: Momolu Sirleaf. [15-8017]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-8017 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-8017 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. WALL, Chaplin, GraceInside Chaplin Services, Inc., sued individually and in official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY) Submitted: February 5, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-8017 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying prejudice. orders his motion for appointment of counsel without This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final of the district court, 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). The order Sirleaf seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Sirleaf’s pending motions and 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?