OpenJurist

107 F3d 866 Henderson v. Ad Mathews Da Lp Jh Mc

107 F.3d 866

Thomas C. HENDERSON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
A.D. MATHEWS, Sr., Sheriff, sued in his official and
individual capacity; D.A. Rybinski, Lieutenant, sued in his
individual capacity; L.P. Mathis, Sergeant, sued in his
individual capacity; J.H. Mullins, Deputy, in his
individual capacity; Deputy Vital, sued in their individual
capacity; Deputy Goggin, sued in his individual capacity;
M.C. Whitt, sued in his individual capacity; Deputy
Prentis, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-7622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 13, 1997.
Decided: March 4, 1997.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Thomas C. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Lord Morrison, Jr., WILLIAMS, STILWELL, MORRISON, WILLIAMS & LIGHT, Danville, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in part, denying it in part, and denying Appellant's motion for counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

3

DISMISSED.