Opinion
No. 10-6585.
Submitted: October 14, 2010.
Decided: October 21, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-ctr-03191-D).
Walter Duane White, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Walter Duane White seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion for a preliminary injunction in this Bivens action. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The court's denial of White's motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of White's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As for the denial White's motion for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Claudius, No. 5:09-ct-03191-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2010). 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.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct.1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.