Hoover v. Lewis

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 2011
Docket10-7376
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hoover v. Lewis (Hoover v. Lewis) 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
Hoover v. Lewis, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7376

ANTHONY LEON HOOVER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT C. LEWIS, Director of Prisons; MICHAEL J. LAMM, Superintendent; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATION; ALLEN W. KELLER, JR., Secretary of State,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-00129-JAB-LPA)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Hoover seeks to appeal an unspecified

order allegedly entered on September 23, 2010. 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 (1949). The order

Hoover seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and his notice of

appeal was premature as to the final order in his proceeding.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

deny Hoover’s motions to compel, for a temporary restraining

order, and for a Federal Marshal. 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

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)
Hoover v. Lewis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-lewis-ca4-2011.