Osborn v. Sacchet

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7606
ROGER OSBORN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden; MARYLAND STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARYLAND STATE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, INCOR-
PORATED; LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ANTHONY SWETZ,
Health Services, DPSCS; JOHN STAFFORD, Doctor,
Medical Director, Correctional Medical Ser-
vices; ALAN GRAVES, Doctor, DDS; ROBERT TES-
TONI, Doctor, DDS; HARRY HEISE, Doctor, DDS;
DOCTOR MOUBAREK, Physician, Correctional Medi-
cal Services; ELEANOR BOWLES, Regional Health
Care Administrator; ROBERT H. MILLER, Case
Management Supervisor, Retired; OLIN BRAKE,
Case Management Supervisor, MCI-H,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-
1952-MJG)
Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Osborn, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Michael
Joseph Lentz, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roger Osborn appeals the district court’s denial of his
motions for summary judgment, for a criminal investigation, for
appointment of counsel and other pretrial motion. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders Osborn seeks to
appeal are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain inter-
locutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541(1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
2