Thomas v. Middleton ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6041
TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. MIDDLETON; B.L. MAUST, Officer; IMANI GREEN, Inmate, ID
337-646; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate, ID 340-968,
Defendants – Appellees,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party – in – Interest.
No. 11-6120
TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. MIDDLETON; B.L. MAUST, Officer; IMANI GREEN, Inmate, ID
337-646; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate, ID 340-968,
Defendants – Appellees,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party – in – Interest.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01493-AW)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Rex
Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions for
appointment of counsel and for production of documents. 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
orders Thomas seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeals 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