U.S.
v.
Parker

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitMay 16, 2011
428 Fed. Appx. 260 (4th Cir. 2011)

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 10 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • explaining that an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to recuse or disqualify was not an "appealable" order

    Summary of this case from Wake Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis

  • explaining that an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to recuse or disqualify was not an "appealable" order

    Summary of this case from North Carolina v. Davis

  • explaining that an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to recuse or disqualify was not an "appealable" order

    Summary of this case from Wake Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis

No. 10-7577.

Submitted: April 29, 2011.

Decided: May 16, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00068-RBS-JEB-1).

Linwood Cola Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Linwood Cola Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to recuse or disqualify. 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 order Parker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.