Wilder v. Baltimore County Police Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1308
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES JOHNSON, Acting Secretary U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; CHRISTOPHER SCOLESE, Acting
Administrator NASA; JOHN GAGE, National President American
Federation of Government Employees; THOMAS BECK, Chairman
Federal Labor Relations Authority; STUART ISHIMARU, Acting
Chairman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; NEIL
ANTHONY GORDON MCPHIE, Chairman United States Merit Systems
Protection Board; THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00318)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., filed a mandamus
petition in the district court, requesting counsel and seeking
to compel the defendants to notify him about any administrative
or judicial decisions that involve him or from which he would
benefit. The district court entered an order granting Wilder
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and placing his case on
inactive status pending resolution of cases Wilder has on the
court’s active docket. Wilder seeks to appeal, challenging the
denial of 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 (1949). Because the order Wilder seeks
to appeal is not immediately appealable, we 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
2