UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6541
STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOEL HERRON; WILLIAM HYATT; JOHN DOE PURCELL; JANE DOE
BOUNDS; JANE DOE COOPER; JANE DOE MOUZON; JANE DOE CHAVIS;
JOHN DOE CHAVIS; JANE DOE HARTY; JANE DOE ROYNOLDS; JANE DOE
MOLLAY; JOHN DOE BELLOMY; JANE DOE LYLE; JANE DOE THOMPSON;
JOHN DOE INGRAM; JOHN DOE SAMUDA; JOHN DOE FRAZIER; JOHN DOE
GIRT; JOHN DOE RUSS; JOHN DOE BRUNSON; JANE DOE MONROE; JOHN
DOE BACOT; JOHN DOE DANFORD; JOHN DOE HUNT; JOHN DOE CHAVIS;
JOHN DOE MCNEAL; JOHN DOE JONES; JOHN DOE C. COVINGTON; JOHN
DOE LOCKLEOR; KRISTIE B. STANBACK; ROBERT C. LEWIS; ALVIN
WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; MARIETTA BARR; JOHN DOE QUICK; PAMELA
J. LOCKLEAR; CHANDRA K. RANSON; OKOCHA FRIDAY; JOHN DOE;
JANE DOE GRAHAM; JOHN DOE JONES; JANE DOE GERALD; JANE DOE
K. AFFORD; JANE DOE C. BULLARL; JOHN DOE, Facility
Classification Committee; JOHN DOE, Director Classification
Committee; JOHN DOE ALEXANDER; JOHN DOE DIAL; JANE DOE
BETHA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,
Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00224-UA-PTS)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Wayne Tompkins seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and
striking his first set of interrogatories and request for
production of documents. 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 order Tompkins 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 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