Quarles v. South Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Quarles v. South Carolina

116 F. App'x 414

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

DocketNo. 04-6918

StatusPublished

This text of 116 F. App'x 414 (Quarles v. South Carolina) 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

Quarles v. South Carolina, 116 F. App'x 414 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Leon Quarles seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on his petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge 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

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

PER CURIAM:

Leon Quarles seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on his petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. App'x 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quarles-v-south-carolina-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack