UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7797
JAMES KISER HAZEL, JR.; CHEMEL CARL WILSON;
CHARLES MASON, JR.; ROGER S. LEGETTE; WILLIE
J. THOMPSON; ADI SUPREME GOD ALLAH; STEFEN
EMIRA HARRIS; CARLOS JONES; EL SHADDAI MASADA;
TYLER MATTRESS; ANTONIO ABNATHEY; ALONZO
HARVIN, collectively, the Rastafari
Congregation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JOHNNY MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY
MAYNARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-2739-4-20BF)
Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: April 23, 2002
Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Kiser Hazel, Jr., Chemel Carl Wilson, Charles Mason, Jr.,
Roger S. Legette, Willie J. Thompson, Adi Supreme God Allah, Stefen
Emira Harris, Carlos Jones, El Shaddai Masada, Tyler Mattress,
Antonio Abnathey, Alonzo Harvin, Appellants Pro Se. Terry B.
Millar, TERRY B. MILLAR, L.L.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying their
motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964-65 (4th Cir. 1987).
We deny as moot Appellants’ motion to expedite the appeal and
dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.* 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
*
In addition, we lack jurisdiction to entertain a pleading
recently filed by Hazel that relates to the district court’s denial
of a Rule 60(b) motion in an apparently unrelated habeas
proceeding. Hazel asks this Court to restore his appellate rights,
send him a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, and reassign his
case. Because the decision challenged by Hazel was denied on
May 2, 2001, we have no authority to consider Hazel’s individual
request for relief.
3