Tucker v. Thomas ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-7843
SERGEANT THOMAS; GUARD THISSEN;
J. B. FRENCH, Warden; LYNN
PHILLIPS; ACCOUNTING CLERK LONG,
Defendants-Appellees.
CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-7855
SERGEANT THOMAS; GUARD THISSEN;
J. B. FRENCH, Warden; LYNN
PHILLIPS; ACCOUNTING CLERK LONG,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-94-957-5-H)
Submitted: January 18, 1996
Decided: February 13, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 95-7843 dismissed and No. 95-7855 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In No. 95-7843, Appellant appeals the district court's order deny-
ing his motion for the appointment of counsel and recusal of the dis-
trict court judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdic-
tion only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain inter-
locutory 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. Accordingly, we dismiss No.
95-7843 as interlocutory.
Appellant also appeals from the district court's order dismissing
the action pursuant to Appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal, No.
95-7855. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Tucker v. Thomas, No. CA-94-957-5-H
(E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
No. 95-7843 - DISMISSED
No. 95-7855 - AFFIRMED
LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring:
Appellant has filed 123 appeals in this court between October 22,
1993, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant for
abuse of the judicial process.
3