Idokogi v. Ashcroft

Fourth Circuit

Idokogi v. Ashcroft

34 F. App'x 958

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6298

StatusPublished

This text of 34 F. App'x 958 (Idokogi v. Ashcroft) 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

Idokogi v. Ashcroft, 34 F. App'x 958 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi appeals the district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See Technosteel, L.L.C. v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 153-54 & n. 2 (4th Cir.2001).

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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi appeals the district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See Technosteel, L.L.C. v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 153-54 & n. 2 (4th Cir.2001).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. App'x 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/idokogi-v-ashcroft-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack