Opinion
No. 12-2447
01-22-2013
Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mary August Huffman, HANCOCK DANIEL JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Megan Paulita Bradshaw, Dante Medardo Filetti, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Darlene P. Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Joshua James Coe, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00325-AWA-TEM) Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mary August Huffman, HANCOCK DANIEL JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Megan Paulita Bradshaw, Dante Medardo Filetti, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Darlene P. Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Joshua James Coe, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Hieda A. Keeler seeks to appeal the district court's order permitting the substitution of defense counsel, denying her motion for appointment of counsel, and various other issues. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The issues Keeler seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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