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)
10-6478•Robert Peoples v. KARL VONMUTIUS, Sargeant, Lieber Correctional Institution
10-6478Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 2, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6478
ROBERT PEOPLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KARL VONMUTIUS, Sargeant, Lieber Correctional Institution;
D. NUNNALLY, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institute; KEVIN
WILLIAMS, Officer, Liber Correctional Institute; URIEL
PALMER, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institute; OFFICER COX;
MARK SELBY, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institute; ALBERT
SMITH, Corporal, Lieber Correctional Institute; DENISE
NORWOOD, Nurse, Lieber Correctional Institute; WILLIAM
BRIGHTHART, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institute,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (1:08-cv-03977-CMC-BHH)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger
Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spatanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Robert Peoples seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
nondispositive orders entered on February 18, 2010, and February
25, 2010. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The orders Peoples seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Peoples’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.