Glover v. Bazzle

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 2004
Docket04-6338
StatusUnpublished

This text of Glover v. Bazzle (Glover v. Bazzle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Glover v. Bazzle, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6338

TEKOA T. GLOVER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-2689-0-23BD)

Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tekoa T. Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney, General, Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Tekoa T. Glover seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying his motions for speedy resolution of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition, for bond, and for joinder of parties. This

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

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Glover seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and 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

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Glover v. Bazzle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-bazzle-ca4-2004.