George Richard Dowler v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6409
GEORGE RICHARD DOWLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY ANN SAAR, D.P.S.C.S.; FRANK C. SIZER,
JR., Commissioner of Corrections; JOHN H.
PRICE, Warden of Maryland Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 05-7653
GEORGE RICHARD DOWLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary, Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services; FRANK C.
SIZER, JR., Commissioner of Corrections; JOHN
H. PRICE, Warden of Maryland Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04-
3048-8-RWT)

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
No. 05-6409, dismissed and No. 05-7653, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
George Richard Dowler, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In consolidated appeals, George Richard Dowler appeals
the district court’s March 3, 2005 order denying his motion to
appoint counsel (No. 05-6409) and the district court’s final order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint (No. 05-7653).
In No. 05-6409, Dowler seeks to appeal the district court’s
March 3, 2005, order denying his motion to appoint 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 Dowler seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
In No. 05-7653, Dowler appeals the district court’s final
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm that order on the reasoning of the district
court. See Dowler v. Saar, No. CA-04-3048-8-RWT (D. Md. Sept. 28,
2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 05-6409 - DISMISSED
No. 05-7653 - AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --