Bryan Alsworth, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Edward Murray, Director; David Williams, Warden; Randallb. Kahelski, Assistant Warden, Defendants-appellees, 902 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, United States Magistrate. (C/A No. 88-476-R)
Bryan Alsworth, appellant pro se.
William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Alsworth appeals the order of the United States Magistrate granting summary judgment to defendants on a number of the claims brought in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and denying Alsworth's motions to compel discovery and 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. § 1292. Orders respecting matters pertaining to discovery are interlocutory in nature and are generally not appealable. Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 (1982). Similarly, an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not a "final decision" and so not immediately appealable. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3267 (U.S. Oct. 13, 1987) (No. 86-7132). Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we 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.
Upon consent of the parties, this matter is being tried before the magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)