Ernest Battle v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

23 F.3d 399, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18446, 1994 WL 199199

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 20, 1994
• Docket: 94-6205
• Status: Published

Opinion

23 F.3d 399
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ernest BATTLE, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Travis Medlock, Attorney General of
the State of South Carolina, Respondents
Appellees.

No. 94-6205.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 20, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1451-3-20)

Ernest Battle, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court's letter requesting a proposed order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, we deny Appellant's "Motion for Enbanc Ruling," and we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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