United States v. Stephen Robinette

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2018
• Docket: 18-6024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN ARTHUR ROBINETTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00400-WO-1; 1:17-cv- 01132)

Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Arthur Robinette, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Stephen Arthur Robinette seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation recommending that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion be dismissed

without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The order Robinette seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005);

Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. U.S.

Envtl. Prot. Agency, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981). 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED