Christopher Michelson v. Quintin Miller ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7427
CHRISTOPHER LEE MICHELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
QUINTIN MILLER, Buncombe County’s Sheriff; MAXWELL, Officer, Buncombe
County Detention Facility; DUSTIN DOW, Asheville Criminal Attorney; COLBY
DODD, Buncombe County Detention Facility Medical Dept.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00311-MR)
Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lee Michelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Michelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing, for
failure to state a claim, his claims against some of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983action; denying his motion for a venue transfer; and declining to appoint counsel or to
recuse the presiding district judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
The order Michelson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, a
district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (denial
of counsel in civil case); In re Ralston Purina Co., 726 F.2d 1002, 1005 (4th Cir. 1984)
(denial of venue transfer); Vuono v. United States, 441 F.2d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 1971)
(recusal ruling). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny
Michelson’s motion for a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2