Olszowy v. Dewitt ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7231
    CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; WAYNE           DEWITT,    Sheriff,
    Berkeley County; RICHARD DRIGGERS, Major,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    JOSEPH   STEPHEN    SCHMUTZ;   BERKELEY   COUNTY   SHERIFF’S
    DEPARTMENT; OFFICER OF THE SOLICITOR NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT;
    BERKELEY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; GOOSE CREEK MAGISTRATE;
    SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; JOHN H. PRICE, JR.; J.
    WESTCOAT SANDLIN; O GRADY QUERY; MICHAEL P. O’CONNELL;
    NATALIE PARKER BLUESTEIN; CONSTANCE MILLS; MARY P. BROWN;
    SCARLETT A. WILSON; JOHN CHURCH, Solicitor,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.       Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
    Judge. (9:09-cv-01662-JMC-BM)
    Submitted:   November 18, 2010              Decided:   December 2, 2010
    Before SHEDD and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and    HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se.
    Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher        and     Anna      Olszowy    seek     to    appeal       the
    district court order denying their motion for appointment of
    counsel.       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       the   Olszowys’    seek    to    appeal      is
    neither    a    final    order       nor    an      appealable     interlocutory        or
    collateral order.         Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
    of jurisdiction.        Further, we deny their motion for a change of
    venue and to suspend briefing.                   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7231

Filed Date: 12/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014