God v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2354
GOD AND COUNTRY FOUNDATION; JAMES RENWICK
MANSHIP, SR., individually and as Chairman of
God and Country Foundation; J.R.M., JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
WILLIAM D. EUILLE, Mayor, individually, as
former and current member of the City Council,
and as Mayor of the city of Alexandria; SCOTT
GIBSON, Sergeant, individually, as supervisor
of Amy Santiago, and as a policeman for the
city of Alexandria; NICK TODARO, Patrolman,
individually and as a policeman for the city
of Alexandria; DONALD HAYS, Lieutenant,
individually, as a police “Internal Affairs
Lieutenant” for the city of Alexandria and its
police department; GEORGE MCANDREWS,
individually and as a City Attorney for the
city of Alexandria and its police department;
KERRY DONNELLY, M.D., Mayor, individually, as
a member of the City Council, and as a former
Mayor of the city of Alexandria,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; AMY SANTIAGO,
Investigator, individually and as a police
officer for the city of Alexandria,
Defendants.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-590-A)
Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Renwick Manship, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Leslie Parpart,
Ashley Lionel Taylor, Jr., TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s denial of
their motions for recusal, sanctions, and appointment of counsel.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order the
Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We decline
Appellants’ request for an order directing the district court to
recuse itself or to transfer the case to a different district.
Likewise, we decline to appoint counsel on appeal or impose
sanctions against Appellees. 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

-- 3 of 3 --