Charles Pratt v. State of North Carolina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 6, 2022
• Docket: 22-6257
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6257 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6257

CHARLES EDGAR PRATT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-hc-02140-M)

Submitted: October 24, 2022 Decided: December 6, 2022

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edgar Pratt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6257 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edgar Pratt seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing case

management. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

Pratt seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. See Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting that premature

notice of appeal of interlocutory order can be valid under the doctrine of cumulative finality

only where the district court could have certified the interlocutory order for immediate

appeal). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* To the extent that Pratt seeks to appeal from the district court’s final order, his premature filing was insufficient to serve as a notice of appeal from that judgment. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005).