Dmitry Pronin v. Charles Wright
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-cv-03635-HMH-KDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Dmitry Pronin UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY BEAUMONT P. O. Box 26030 Beaumont, TX 77720-6030. [17-6613]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
CHARLES WRIGHT, “Chuck”; NEAL URCH; ASHLEY MCCANN; L.
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:16-cv-03635-HMHKDW)
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: October 24, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dmitry Pronin, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., WILLSON JONES
CARTER & BAXLEY, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Dmitry Pronin seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying class
certification and denying appointment of class counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
suit. 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, 545-46 (1949). The
order Pronin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the
extent Pronin’s notice of appeal can be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for
permission to appeal, permission is denied. 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.
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?