Richard Kendrick v. L. Edmonds

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 14, 2023
• Docket: 22-7126
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7126 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7126

RICHARD WADE KENDRICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

L. EDMONDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00505-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: February 7, 2023 Decided: February 14, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7126 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Wade Kendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 Kendrick’s claims

that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert his speedy trial rights

prior to trial and failing to assert the denial of his right to a speedy trial during his trial or

on appeal. We therefore conclude that the order Kendrick 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 claims. ∗

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

∗ We express no opinion on the merits of these claims.