Richard Dean Mears v. United States

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23452, 1995 WL 378593
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 27, 1995
Docket94-7121
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Richard Dean Mears v. United States) 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
Richard Dean Mears v. United States, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23452, 1995 WL 378593 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard Dean MEARS, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 94-7121.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 1995.
Decided: June 27, 1995.

Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals an order transferring his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (1988) petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina.1 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. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Van Orman v. Purkett, 43 F.3d 1201, 1202-03 (8th Cir.1994).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.2 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.

1

Although the order was entered in the Middle District of North Carolina, it was docketed in the Eastern District, in case number CA-94-501-5-H

2

Appellant did not note an appeal from the final order

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)
Allen Floyd Van Orman v. James Purkett
43 F.3d 1201 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23452, 1995 WL 378593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-dean-mears-v-united-states-ca4-1995.