Christopher Payne v. William Wilson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:17-cv-00007-EKD-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000177432]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6877]
Appeal: 17-6877
Doc: 20
Filed: 10/20/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6877
CHRISTOPHER NELSON PAYNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM WILSON, Warden RSW Jail; WITLEY, NRADC; RN SHEILA MILLER,
NRADC; PENNY HOLT, RSW,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CHRIS WILLIAMS, Captain; MEDICAL STAFF.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:17-cv-00007-EKD-RSB)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 20, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Nelson Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE SMITH,
Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-6877
Doc: 20
Filed: 10/20/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Nelson Payne seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his
motion to appoint 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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949). The order Payne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we 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?