Lawrence Wilder, Sr. v. Charles Johnson, No. 09-1368 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1368 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES JOHNSON, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; KATHY WHIPPLE, Acting Director, United States Office of Personnel Management; ADMINISTRATOR CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID STUDIES; SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CHRISTOPHER SCOLESE, Acting Administrator, NASA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00351) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition in Verline the district Wilder, court, Sr., filed requesting a mandamus appointment of counsel and seeking to compel the defendants to assist him in applying for disability and worker s compensation benefits. 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 appointment of counsel. appeal, challenging the denial of 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.