UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6225
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS;
KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE
CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICA SHEARIN,
Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD,
Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant;
J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN,
Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN,
Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S.
FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T.
RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant;
E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT,
Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D.
MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D.
CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE,
Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A.
BAILEY, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-00834-CCB)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for a default judgment. 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 order Chase 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 also deny Chase’s request
for injunctive relief. 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