Spurlock v. Hurst

Full title: Gilbert L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana R. HURST, Colonel; U.S…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 27, 2009

329 F. App'x 460 (4th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 09-1338 to 09-1341, 09-1343 to 09-1349, 09-1351 to 09-1353, 09-1355 to 09-1362, 09-1370, 09-1371, 09-1380.

Submitted: July 7, 2009.

Decided: July 27, 2009.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg, Elkins, Wheeling, and Martinsburg. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00009-REM; 1:09-cv-00012-REM; 1:09-cv-00013-REM; 2:09-cv-00015-REM; 2:09-ev-00017-REM; 2:09-cv-00013-REM; 2:09-cv-00019-REM; 2:09-cv-00021-REM; 1:09-cv-00025-REM; 1:09-cv-00029-REM; 2:09-cv-00008-REM; 2:09-cv-00016-REM; 2:09-cv-00018-REM; 2:09-cv-00020-REM; 1:09-cv-00022-REM; 1:09-cv-00023-REM; 1:09-cv-00024-REM; 1:09-cv-00026-REM; 5:09-cv-00011-REM; 5:09-cv-00012-REM; 5:09-cv-00010-REM; 5:09-cv-00018-REM; 3:09-cv-00009-REM; 3:09-cv-00008-REM; 1:09-cv-00014-REM).

Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Carol Ann Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gilbert L. Spurlock seeks to appeal the district court's orders transferring his cases to the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Spurlock seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the appeals, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Spurlock's motion to schedule a conference, and dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED.