Christopher Payne v. William Wilson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6877 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/20/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6877 CHRISTOPHER NELSON PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM WILSON, Warden RSW Jail; WITLEY,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?