Myron Nunn v. NC Dept of Public safety


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999941254-2]. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03058-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000000920]. Mailed to: Myron Nunn & Lawrence Gilmartin. [16-7006]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7006 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/10/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7006 MYRON RODERICK NUNN, Appellant, and LAWRENCE P. GILMARTIN, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DR. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Greene Correctional Institution, LAND; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03058-FL) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit January 10, 2017 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7006 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/10/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s failure to rule on his motion to amend a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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, 54546 (1949). order nor Nunn’s notice of appeal challenges neither a final an Accordingly, appealable we deny interlocutory Nunn’s motion or for collateral the order. appointment counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts of 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?