Black v. Newcombe ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-2361
    DAVID FRANKLIN BLACK, in propria persona, qui
    tam, a legally adjudicated total and permanent
    physically disabled American veteran, in forma
    pauperis, a custodial single parent,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KERRY NEWCOMBE, authorized representative Com-
    monwealth of Virginia, Division of Child Sup-
    port Enforcement (DCSE) Department of Social
    Services, Winchester, VA; KATHLEEN GRIFFIN,
    DCSE; DIANE DEVINE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-95-763-A)
    Submitted:   December 26, 1996            Decided:   January 24, 1997
    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Franklin Black, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and
    the district court's order and find no reversible error. According-
    ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Black v.
    Newcombe, No. CA-95-763-A (E.D. Va. June 8, 1995); see Equipment
    Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 
    973 F.2d 345
    , 347-48
    (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing appellate review of premature appeals
    under the doctrine of cumulative finality). We note that Appel-
    lant's failure to note an appeal of the district court's March 19,
    1996, order deprives us of jurisdiction to consider that order. We
    deny Appellant's renewed motion for appointment of counsel. We dis-
    pense 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.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-2361

Filed Date: 1/24/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014