White v. Claudius

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6585 WALTER DUANE WHITE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PUSHP K. CLAUDIUS; FREDDIE GORRIDO; SAMUEL L. BATTS; D. R. STEPHENS, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03191-D) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Duane White, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Walter Duane White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion for a preliminary injunction in this Bivens * action. 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 court’s denial of White’s motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of White’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As for the denial White’s motion for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Claudius, No. 5:09-ct-03191-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2010). 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 PART; AFFIRMED IN PART * Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2