The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6554•Billy Joe Pelfrey v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
00-6554Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 4, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6554
BILLY JOE PELFREY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DALLAN FIELDS, Sheriff; DAN FERGUSON, Jail
Administrator; DONALD STEPP, Major; SERGEANT
CARTER; TOMMY DAWSON, Corporal; EDDIE
HUTINSON, C.O.; J. R. LOCKHART, C.O.; MARGO
ATKINS, C.O.; BERRY LEWIS, C.O.; MIKE ZOLLMAN,
C.O.; JOHN DOE, I (C.O. Pete); JOHN DOE, II
(C.O. Shane),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District
Judge. (CA-99-693-3)
Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Joe Pelfrey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mark Fowler, PULLIN,
KNOPF, FOWLER & FLANAGAN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Billy Joe Pelfrey appeals a district court order denying his
objections to a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000)
action. 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 interlocu-
tory 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 order here appealed is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.