Charles Galloway v. USA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999804886-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00578-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873436]. Mailed to: Galloway. [16-6541]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6541 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6541 CHARLES LEONARD GALLOWAY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. USA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00578-ELH) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Leonard Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6541 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Charles court’s Leonard order Galloway transferring seeks his to appeal complaint the filed district pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to another district. 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 Galloway Corp., seeks to 337 U.S. appeal is 541, 545-46 neither a (1949). final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The order order nor an See TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 154 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we deny Galloway’s motion to assign counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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?