Don Mitchell Wilborn v. Andrew Mansukhani

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999997814-2] Originating case number: 0:16-cv-01134-DCN-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032107]. Mailed to: Don Mitchell Wilborn FCI ESTILL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 699 Estill, SC 29918-0699. [16-7668]

Appeal: 16-7668

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7668

DON MITCHELL WILBORN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANDREW MANSUKHANI, Warden, FCI Estill,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge;
Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (0:16-cv-01134-DCN-PJG)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Mitchell Wilborn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7668

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Don Mitchell Wilborn seeks to appeal two pretrial orders
issued by the magistrate judge and the district court’s order
affirming the magistrate judge’s rulings in Wilborn’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012) action.

On appeal, Wilborn challenges the orders

he

insofar

seeks

to

appeal

consolidate

his

court

exercise

may

action

with

as
that

they
of

jurisdiction

28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

collateral

orders,

28

and

U.S.C.

deny

another

only

request

litigant.

over

certain

§ 1292

his

final

to
This

orders,

interlocutory

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

and
P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).
orders

The orders Wilborn seeks to appeal are neither final

nor

appealable

Accordingly,

we

deny

interlocutory

leave

to

proceed

or
in

collateral
forma

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

orders.

pauperis

and

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2