Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas v. Middleton, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals filed by Titus Thomas regarding orders issued by a district court judge in a case Thomas brought against prison officials. The appeals were consolidated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders Thomas sought to appeal (denying his motions for appointment of counsel and production of documents) were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6041

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes two appeals filed by Titus Thomas regarding orders issued by a district court judge in a case Thomas brought against prison officials. The appeals were consolidated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders Thomas sought to appeal (denying his motions for appointment of counsel and production of documents) were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Thomas v. Middleton, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals filed by Titus Thomas regarding orders issued by a district court judge in a case Thomas brought against prison officials. The appeals were consolidated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders Thomas sought to appeal (denying his motions for appointment of counsel and production of documents) were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED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.

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas seeks to
    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    denying

    his

    motions

    appointment of counsel and for production of documents.


    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    for
    This

    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

    nor

    Thomas

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    are

    neither

    final

    appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    orders

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like