Willis v. Dept of Transportation ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1676
DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JONES COUNTY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNDO TIPPETT,
As Secretary; CAM MCRAE, As Public Official;
JAY CONVERSE, As Private Individuals And/Or
Their Successors; TANDS INCORPORATION, As
Private Individuals And/Or Their Successors,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (4:07-cv-00046-FL)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 11, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Scott A. Conklin, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nicole A.
Crawford, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro,
North Carolina; John W. Ormand, III, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Willis seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th
Cir. 1987) (an order denying appointment of counsel is not
reviewable by interlocutory appeal). Accordingly, we deny Willis’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 -