The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-6050•Jimmy Allen Roberts v. FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Department of…
20-6050Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 27, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6050
JIMMY ALLEN ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety,
Department of Adult Correction (Official Capacity); KENNETH LASSITER,
Director, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Department of Adult
Correction (Official Capacity),
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES INC.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00063-FDW)
Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Jimmy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Allen Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Roberts’
motion for the appointment of counsel in his ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) civil rights
action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order Roberts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.