LeAnthony Winston v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6851 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6851

LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-00577-RGD-RJK; 2:20-cv- 00423-RGD-RJK)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6851 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

LeAnthony T. Winston seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his

amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it

has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

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

claims raised in the petition. Specifically, the court failed to address Winston’s claims of

prosecutorial misconduct, discrimination, violation of his speedy trial and due process

rights, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore conclude that the order Winston

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

deny Winston’s pending motions, and remand to the district court for consideration of the

unresolved claims. Id. 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