United States v. Brooks

151 F. App'x 229
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Brooks. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 F. App'x 701
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 27, 2005·No. No. 05-6570·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Regina Faye Brooks seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation advising the district court to deny Brooks’ motion for supplemental briefing and to deny relief on Brooks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The report and recommendation Brooks seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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

United States v. Brooks, 151 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2005).

151 F. App'x 229 (United States v. Brooks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)