Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Pierce v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina et al. The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order being appealed, which denied the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, is not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismisses the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Pierce v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina et al. The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order being appealed, which denied the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, is not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismisses the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7041

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina et al. The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order being appealed, which denied the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, is not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismisses the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Pierce v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Howard Pierce v. State of South Carolina et al. The court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order being appealed, which denied the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, is not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismisses the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7041

    HOWARD PIERCE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM DAVIS,
    Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH
    CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Director,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-95-680-3BC)
    Submitted:

    January 18, 1996

    Decided:

    February 15, 1996

    Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Howard Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal
    for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This
    court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
    1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28
    U.S.C. 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
    Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is
    neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
    order.
    We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and 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

    You might also like