Ray Clarence Rogers v. Donald Wenk; Eric Edwards; Nathaniel Brothers; Josh Cranford; Jonathan Hart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6574
RAY CLARENCE ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD WENK; ERIC EDWARDS; NATHANIEL BROTHERS; JOSH
CRANFORD; JONATHAN HART,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY; SHERIFF EDWARD MCMAHON; M. MARKLEY;
J. VAZQUEZ; NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; S.
LEONARD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03013-BO)
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 13, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Ray Clarence Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan David Eubanks, SUMRELL SUGG, PA,
New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ray Clarence Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions
seeking the appointment of counsel, to order subpoenas, to reconsider denying subpoenas,
to give leave to file a third amended complaint, and for recusal of the district court judge.
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 Rogers seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we deny Rogers’s motions to appoint counsel, deny as moot Roger’s second
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant Defendants’ motion, and 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

-- 3 of 3 --