McKindley Travis v. Patricia Watson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999958508-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-01006-TSE-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000028060]. Mailed to: McKindley Travis. [16-7400]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7400 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7400 MCKINDLEY TRAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. PATRICIA WATSON, Respondent – Appellee, and NELSON H. C. FISHER, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-01006-TSE-IDD) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 22, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McKindley Travis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7400 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: McKindley Travis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Travis seeks Corp., to 337 appeal U.S. is 541, 545-46 neither a (1949). final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The order order nor an Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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?