Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

888 F.2d 1385

Docket No. 89-6674.

Carson v. Rm Jarvis

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted July 31, 1989. Decided Oct. 11, 1989.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1990 · most notably Minniel Ferguson-Bey- v. Lever Brothers Inc. (1989), Gilbert v. Harman Mining Corporation (1989)

25 federal appellate ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Catlin v. United States · Miller v. Simmons

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marvin Carson, appellant pro se.

Lucien Capone, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, SPROUSE, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Marvin Carson appeals the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

¶3

An order denying a pro se litigant's motion for appointment of counsel is not a final order. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3267 (U.S. Oct. 13, 1987) (No. 86-6884). Therefore, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

¶4

Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel on appeal and dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues have been decided authoritatively.

¶5

DISMISSED.

/888/f2d/1385 · .json · Public domain