James Charles v. Eddie Buffaloe, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-7229
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7229

JAMES BENJAMIN CHARLES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00196-MR)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 8, 2023

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Benjamin Charles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

James Benjamin Charles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. “[W]e have an independent obligation to verify the existence

of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. “Ordinarily, a district

court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at

696 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court

decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the

issues in a case, then there is no final order.” Id.

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the

claims raised in Charles’ § 2254 petition. Specifically, the court did not address whether

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to show to the jury allegedly

exculpatory statements in letters written by Wendy Barnhill and by failing to object to the

introduction at trial of photographs of Charles in a prison uniform; whether appellate

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal ineffective

assistance of trial counsel claims; and whether Charles’ due process right to a fair trial was

violated by the prosecution’s allegedly prejudicial remarks during closing arguments and

by Charles’ pretrial conditions of confinement. These claims were presented in Charles’

prior state motion for appropriate relief (MAR), and that MAR was attached to, and

referenced in, the letter construed by the district court as Charles’ § 2254 petition.

Although Charles’ petition was not a model of clarity, we nevertheless conclude that the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/08/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

claims raised in Charles’ MAR were properly incorporated as part of his § 2254 petition

for the district court’s consideration. See generally Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007) (requiring employment of liberal construction when evaluating pro se filings).

Because the district court did not address all of Charles’ claims in his § 2254

petition, we conclude that the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved issues.

See Porter, 803 F.3d at 699. 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 AND REMANDED