Thomas Farmer v. R. Wolfe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 22-6166
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6166 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6166

THOMAS LEE FARMER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00147-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: February 13, 2023 Decided: March 31, 2023

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lee Farmer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6166 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 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 § 2241 petition. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address

Farmer’s challenges to the validity of his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and his 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e) sentence enhancement. We conclude that the orders Farmer seeks to appeal are

neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 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