UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7481
JORGE GEVARA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
F. B. HUBBARD, Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assist.
Superintendent of Programs; DEBRA DUNCAN, R.N. - Medical
Administrator; C. FIELDS, Correctional Officer; DAVID
OSTORNE, Asst. Director Prisons; PAULA Y. SMITH, Medical
Director of Prisons; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Prisons; D.
JONES MURPHY, Nurse; AMY S. MACKEY; PETER KEYSER; MR.
PERRITT, Unit Manager; T. JONES, Asst. Unit Manager; P.
BETHEA, Correctional Officer; PURCEL, Correctional Officer;
QUICK, Sergeant; MILLER, Sergeant; ASHE HARRIS, Notary
Public; DIRECTOR OF PRISONS BOYD BENNETT,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00681-WO-LPA)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to
deny Gevara’s “Motion to Amend an Order to Show Cause and for an
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and Appointment of
Counsel as a Support of Any Error and Objections to the
Magistrate’s Opinion & 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, 545-47 (1949). The order Gevara seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
Gevara’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal 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