Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Woods v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    Cornelius Woods appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel in his Bivens action without prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under the exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court did not have authority to hear the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6656

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cornelius Woods appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel in his Bivens action without prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under the exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court did not have authority to hear the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Woods v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Woods appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel in his Bivens action without prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under the exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court did not have authority to hear the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6656

    CORNELIUS R. WOODS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVEN HILL; RALPH WYLIE; DOYLE COX; CURTIS E.
    SMITH; SHERMAN SMITH; GARY PEGRAM; SHAUNDRA
    PATTERSON; BEVERLY MCCLAIN; DONALD PETRISKO;
    WILLIAM MYLES; LUTHER HILL; ROBERT HILL;
    DENNIS HAWKINS; KEVIN KIDDY; TODD HILL; DOES
    1-20, inclusively; JOSEPH BROOKS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Movant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge; M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-124-REP)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2005

    Decided:

    October 6, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cornelius R. Woods, Appellant Pro Se.


    Debra Jean Prillaman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Cornelius R. Woods seeks to appeal the magistrate judges
    order denying without prejudice Woods motion for appointment of
    counsel

    in

    this

    Bivens*

    action.

    This

    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and


    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

    The order Woods seeks to appeal is

    neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral


    order.

    Accordingly,

    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

    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named


    Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
    - 3 -

    Agents

    of

    Fed.

    Bureau

    of

    You might also like