United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Lovell Hutto, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 914 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR No. 87-14)
George Lovell Hutto, Jr., appellant pro se.
Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, S.C., for appellee.
Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
George Lovell Hutto, Jr. appeals the district court's order denying his motion to appoint counsel to assist in the preparation of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir.) (appeal of court's denial of pro se litigant's motion to appoint counsel is interlocutory), cert. denied, Welch v. Smith, 484 U.S. 903 (1987).
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. 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.