United States v. Scambos

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 2008
Docket07-2187
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Scambos (United States v. Scambos) 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
United States v. Scambos, (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS T. SCAMBOS, JR.,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:07-mc-00011-nkm-bwc)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas T. Scambos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Branman, Andrea R. Tebbets, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Thomas T. Scambos, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order amending a previous order, directing that Scambos be

given notice that he had to file written objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation, and denying Scambos’ motion to amend a

transcript. 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 (1949). The

order Scambos seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and deny the Government’s motion to extend the time to

file an informal response brief as moot. 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

- 2 -

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Scambos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scambos-ca4-2008.