Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lowe v. Augusta Corr Admin, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Stanley D. Lowe v. Augusta Correctional Center Administration et al. (No. 96-7038). The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order denying the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel was not a final order and was therefore not appealable. The court also denies the appellant's motions before the court for appointment of counsel, to amend his complaint, and for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7038

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Stanley D. Lowe v. Augusta Correctional Center Administration et al. (No. 96-7038). The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order denying the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel was not a final order and was therefore not appealable. The court also denies the appellant's motions before the court for appointment of counsel, to amend his complaint, and for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Lowe v. Augusta Corr Admin, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Stanley D. Lowe v. Augusta Correctional Center Administration et al. (No. 96-7038). The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order denying the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel was not a final order and was therefore not appealable. The court also denies the appellant's motions before the court for appointment of counsel, to amend his complaint, and for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7038

    STANLEY D. LOWE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER ADMINISTRATION;
    JACK LEE, Assistant Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; R. L. BOYERS, Lieutenant,
    Augusta Correctional Center; CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER DANDRIDGE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-96-338-R)
    Submitted:

    September 17, 1996

    Decided:

    October 9, 1996

    Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stanley D. Lowe, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court order denying his motion
    for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may
    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291
    (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
    1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither
    a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Appellant's motions
    before this court for appointment of counsel, for leave to amend
    his complaint to add new defendants, and for reconsideration are
    denied. 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

    You might also like