UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6042
KEITH D. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON; HAROLD W. CLARKE; JOHN JABE; FRED SHILLING;
KIM RUNION; ELTON BROWN, Doctor; KRYM; SPRUILL, Doctor;
HARVARD STEPHENS, Doctor,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
A. DAVID ROBINSON; J. LAFOON; Q. BIRCHETTE; MS. G.F. SIVELS;
G. ROBINSON; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; C. MAYES; C. BAILEY; PRISON
HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: May 22, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Appeal dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith D. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia;
Gary Christopher Jones, Jr., Mark Charles Nanavati, SINNOTT,
NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC, Midlothian, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Keith D. Goodman appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to appoint counsel. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Goodman
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny his motions to
appoint counsel on appeal and for a stay pending appeal. We
also deny his motion to amend his informal brief because the
claims presented therein are more appropriately raised in his
appeal from the district court’s order granting summary
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3