Andrew D. Wenmoth v. OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7750
ANDREW D. WENMOTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE,
Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing
Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs;
TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE
SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-7826
ANDREW D. WENMOTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE,
Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing
Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs;
TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE
SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Rehearing granted, February 11, 2010

-- 1 of 3 --

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00182-JPB-JSK)
Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew D. Wenmoth, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Buck, April Joy
Wheeler, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Andrew Wenmoth seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint in
part and denying his motion to alter or amend the district’s
order. 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
(1949). The orders Wenmoth seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we deny Wenmoth’s motions for stays pending appeal
and dismiss the appeals 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

-- 3 of 3 --