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)
03-7977•Stanley Mark Ballenger v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
03-7977Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 4, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7977
STANLEY MARK BALLENGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3333-6-18K)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Mark Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Stanley M. Ballenger seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying his motion for appointed 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 Ballenger 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 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.