Francisco Masias v. Warden Hodges, sued in official

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6121
FRANCISCO MASIAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HODGES, sued in official and individual capacity; CAPTAIN RIFFLE,
sued in official and individual capacity; S.I.S. ALDRIGE, sued in official and
individual capacity; DR. WILSON, sued in official and individual capacity; AUSA
FLOWERS, sued in official and individual capacity; AUSA BAUER, sued in official
and individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00171-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francisco Masias, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Masias seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to
appoint counsel and motion for reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Masias seeks to appeal are neither final nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. And, although the district court subsequently dismissed
the underlying case, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure this jurisdictional
defect because the orders could not have been certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b). See Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly,
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 this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --