Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, a/k/a James Smith v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6058
YAQUB HAMEED MUWAKKIL, a/k/a James Smith,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
L. W. HUFFMAN, Regional Director of the
Northern Region of the Virginia Department of
Corrections (VDOC); LISA EDWARDS, Warden;
DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; WARDEN
SPENCE; UNIT MANAGER EVERETTE; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER DAVIS; WARDEN WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-570-2)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,
Assistant Attorney General, Dana L. Gay, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil seeks to appeal the district court’s
order permitting late filing of Defendants’ response to his
discovery requests, granting Defendants’ motion for an extension of
time to file an answer, denying Muwakkil’s motion for default
judgment, granting Muwakkil’s motion for an extension of time to
file a response, and denying Muwakkil’s motion to strike. 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 Muwakkil seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Muwakkil’s motions to compel and to stay the
appeal. 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 --