888 F.2d 1387 (4th Cir. 1989), 89-2084, Wrenn v. Sullivan
|Citation:||888 F.2d 1387|
|Party Name:||Curtis L. WRENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, University of Maryland School of Medicine, State of Maryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, University of Maryland at Baltimore Medical System/Hospital and Professional Schools, G. Bruce McFadden, Individually and as Director,|
|Case Date:||October 19, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted Aug. 21, 1989.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-384-HAR).
Curtis L. Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se.
Before K.K. HALL, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Curtis L. Wrenn appeals the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3267 (U.S. Oct. 13, 1987) (No. 86-7132).
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issue has been decided authoritatively.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP